Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

216 ITR 291High Court1995#4376 most cited

What is Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Decisions affirmed by the ITAT and consistent with Supreme Court and High Court rulings are followed. This case is cited as authority for procedural matters related to assessments and disallowances under Section 14A.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT · CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas · DCM Ltd. v. CIT · section 14A · disallowance · assessment · ITAT · High Court · Supreme Court

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 199Section 80IASection 263Section 90(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(4)(i)section 33acsection 90(1)section 80hhesection 32asection 117section 210section 4asection 74section 80ia(4)infrastructure facilitysection 73

Judgments citing Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 727/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

…and is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. SitaldasTirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) and several decisions of the High Courts including DCM Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR (Del.) 408 and Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd., v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom.). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.” ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 14 10. She further relied on the judgment of ITAT Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in ITA Nos.210 and 211/CTK/2018, Order 08.10.2020 which placed at Paper Book Page Nos.75 to 85. The learned Counsel has fil…

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 726/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

…and is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. SitaldasTirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) and several decisions of the High Courts including DCM Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR (Del.) 408 and Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd., v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom.). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.” ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 14 10. She further relied on the judgment of ITAT Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in ITA Nos.210 and 211/CTK/2018, Order 08.10.2020 which placed at Paper Book Page Nos.75 to 85. The learned Counsel has fil…

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 725/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

…and is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. SitaldasTirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) and several decisions of the High Courts including DCM Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR (Del.) 408 and Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd., v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom.). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.” ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 14 10. She further relied on the judgment of ITAT Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in ITA Nos.210 and 211/CTK/2018, Order 08.10.2020 which placed at Paper Book Page Nos.75 to 85. The learned Counsel has fil…

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 724/BANG/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

…and is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. SitaldasTirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) and several decisions of the High Courts including DCM Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR (Del.) 408 and Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd., v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom.). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.” ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 14 10. She further relied on the judgment of ITAT Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in ITA Nos.210 and 211/CTK/2018, Order 08.10.2020 which placed at Paper Book Page Nos.75 to 85. The learned Counsel has fil…

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 723/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

…and is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. SitaldasTirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) and several decisions of the High Courts including DCM Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR (Del.) 408 and Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd., v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom.). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.” ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 14 10. She further relied on the judgment of ITAT Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in ITA Nos.210 and 211/CTK/2018, Order 08.10.2020 which placed at Paper Book Page Nos.75 to 85. The learned Counsel has fil…

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 486/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

…and is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. SitaldasTirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) and several decisions of the High Courts including DCM Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR (Del.) 408 and Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd., v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom.). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.” ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 14 10. She further relied on the judgment of ITAT Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in ITA Nos.210 and 211/CTK/2018, Order 08.10.2020 which placed at Paper Book Page Nos.75 to 85. The learned Counsel has fil…

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 485/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

…and is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. SitaldasTirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) and several decisions of the High Courts including DCM Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR (Del.) 408 and Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd., v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom.). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.” ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 14 10. She further relied on the judgment of ITAT Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in ITA Nos.210 and 211/CTK/2018, Order 08.10.2020 which placed at Paper Book Page Nos.75 to 85. The learned Counsel has fil…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 484/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

…and is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. SitaldasTirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) and several decisions of the High Courts including DCM Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR (Del.) 408 and Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd., v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom.). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.” ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 14 10. She further relied on the judgment of ITAT Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in ITA Nos.210 and 211/CTK/2018, Order 08.10.2020 which placed at Paper Book Page Nos.75 to 85. The learned Counsel has fil…

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 483/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

…and is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. SitaldasTirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) and several decisions of the High Courts including DCM Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR (Del.) 408 and Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd., v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom.). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.” ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 14 10. She further relied on the judgment of ITAT Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in ITA Nos.210 and 211/CTK/2018, Order 08.10.2020 which placed at Paper Book Page Nos.75 to 85. The learned Counsel has fil…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 482/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

…and is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. SitaldasTirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) and several decisions of the High Courts including DCM Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR (Del.) 408 and Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd., v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom.). Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue as well.” ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 14 10. She further relied on the judgment of ITAT Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in ITA Nos.210 and 211/CTK/2018, Order 08.10.2020 which placed at Paper Book Page Nos.75 to 85. The learned Counsel has fil…

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

…1933] 1 ITR 135 (SC) 28 13 29 Rajkot District Gopalak Co-op. Milk Producers' Union Ltd. vs. CIT 204 5 ITR 590 (Gujarat) RSM & Co. Vs. Addl. CIT (2010) 125 ITD 243 (Mum.) 30 24 Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 31 20 Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT 216 ITR 291(Bom.) 32 5 33 State Bank of Travancore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 158 ITR 2 102 (SC) T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai) 34 28 P a g e 5 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam vs. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 197(Allahabad) 35 17 V. N. V. Devarajulu Chetty and Co. v. CIT [1950] 18 ITR 357 36 24 Vibhuti Glass Works vs. CIT [1…

NATIONAL SECURITIES DEPOSITORY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1918/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenational Securities Depository Limited V. Pr.Cit-8 4Th Floor, A-Wing Room No. 611, 6Th Floor Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aadcn9802F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala & Shri Jeet Kamdae Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43B

…nt transaction under consideration will not fall in any of the Page No. 5 National Securities Depository Limited clause mention under section 43B of the Act. In this regard he relied on the following decisions: - a. Somaiya Ogeno-Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 291 (Bombay). b. CIT v. New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., [2000] 244 ITR 738] (Madras). c. CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., [1998] 229 ITR 285 (Madras). 9. By relying on the above said decisions he submitted that the amount set-aside by the assessee is nothing but diversion of the amount at source. Therefore, the amount claimed by the as…

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…CTR 0408, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291. On the issue of Debt Redemption Reserve, again reliance is placed upon decision in National Rayon Corporation (supra) to the effect that the amount was neither a reserve nor a provision for unascertained liability so as to attract clause (b) or (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. Revenue has contested and argued to the contrary.…

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3568/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…CTR 0408, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291. On the issue of Debt Redemption Reserve, again reliance is placed upon decision in National Rayon Corporation (supra) to the effect that the amount was neither a reserve nor a provision for unascertained liability so as to attract clause (b) or (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. Revenue has contested and argued to the contrary.…

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5118/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…CTR 0408, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291. On the issue of Debt Redemption Reserve, again reliance is placed upon decision in National Rayon Corporation (supra) to the effect that the amount was neither a reserve nor a provision for unascertained liability so as to attract clause (b) or (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. Revenue has contested and argued to the contrary.…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…of law if the amounts were transferred to the designated fund, then in such cases the Courts have held it to be a case of diversion of income by overriding title. In a matter before Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd vs CIT 216 ITR 291 (Bom), the facts were that a portion of the sales price was transferred to a separate fund for building up adequate storage facilities under a statutory obligation, it was held to be diverted at source by overriding title could not form part of assessee’s income. 14.42. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon before us the judgment of Hon’ble Madras Hig…

MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4474/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Maharashtra Industrial Deputy Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Tax (Exemption)-2(1), बिधम/ Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 60Section 61Section 62

…eceived on leasing of the lands was clearly diverted at source to the State Government. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Somaiya Organao Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291 (Bom). Alternatively, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R that the A.O had even otherwise erred in treating the gross receipts as the taxable income of the assessee without granting deduction for the expenditure incurred on earning of the same. The Ld. A.R. in order to fortify his aforesaid claim took us through a computation of income, which as per…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5655/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…of law if the amounts were transferred to the designated fund, then in such cases the Courts have held it to be a case of diversion of income by overriding title. In a matter before Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd vs CIT 216 ITR 291 (Bom),the facts were that a portion of the sales price was transferred to a separate fund for building up adequate storage facilities under a statutory obligation, it was held to be diverted at source by overriding title could not form part of assessee’s income. 14.42. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon before us the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4784/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…of law if the amounts were transferred to the designated fund, then in such cases the Courts have held it to be a case of diversion of income by overriding title. In a matter before Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd vs CIT 216 ITR 291 (Bom),the facts were that a portion of the sales price was transferred to a separate fund for building up adequate storage facilities under a statutory obligation, it was held to be diverted at source by overriding title could not form part of assessee’s income. 14.42. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon before us the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5592/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…of law if the amounts were transferred to the designated fund, then in such cases the Courts have held it to be a case of diversion of income by overriding title. In a matter before Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd vs CIT 216 ITR 291 (Bom),the facts were that a portion of the sales price was transferred to a separate fund for building up adequate storage facilities under a statutory obligation, it was held to be diverted at source by overriding title could not form part of assessee’s income. 14.42. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon before us the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2