Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT

6 SOT 497Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#10960 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 263Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

unexplained investmentindiacompanysection 143(3)total incomebusinessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT

CHOLAMANDALAM MS RISK SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1214/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar. RFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin, C.N., CIT
Section 143Section 195Section 263Section 9

…delay viz. (i) decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749, (ii) decision of ITAT, Mumbai The Income Tax Officer Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT/Jt. CIT [2006] 6 SOT 497 (Mum.)], (iii) decision of ITAT Surat Bench in the case M/s. Cholamandalam MS Risk Services Ltd. :: 8 :: of Chirag P. Thummar v. PCIT in ITA No.44 (SRT)/2022 dated 22.01.2025 & (iv) decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mist. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471, and prayed that the delay may be condoned since…

MR. NARENDRA KUMA RBAL,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack28 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

…e admitted for merit hearing. 4. That, there exists sufficient and reasonable cause to condone the delay in filing the said Appeal and the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2006) 102 TT) (Mumbai) 53 :(2006) 6 SOT 497 (Mumbai) laid down the following proposition on power of Tribunal to condone delay: "The expression 'sufficient cause or reason' as provided in sub-s. (5) of s. 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the IT Act such as Secs. 274, 273, etc. Keeping…

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…be otherwise in another. What is of essence is whether it was an act of prudent of reasonable man. Subsequent decision of a court cannot constitute sufficient cause.  The Mumbai ITAT in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT [2006] 6 SOT 497 (Mum.)]:- Laid down the following proposition on power of ITAT to condone delay: “The expression ‘sufficient cause or reason’ as provided in subsection (5) of section 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the Income-tax Act such as sections 274,…

PEPPERAZZI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 448/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Final Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chajad, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 253Section 5

…imitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to party. The Mumbai ITAT in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT [2006] 6 SOT 497 (Mum.)]laid down the following proposition on power of ITAT to condone delay: “The expression ‘sufficient cause or reason’ as provided in sub- section (5) of section 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the Income-tax Act such as sections 274,…

M/S VRL LOGISTICS LTD,HUBLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2780/BANG/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…otherwise. The payment crystalised the expense which are regularly incurred and are acceptable to the authorities, therefore, was duly considered for allowance as relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of Sterilite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT 6 SOT 497 which facts are equally applicable in the case of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) tried to justify the accounting failure and failure on the part of Accountant to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the same and confirmation thereafter. On the facts and circumstances as has been brought on record, it is clear that these expen…

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal and cross objection are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5202/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…c. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v/s. JCIT (ITA. Nos. 1013/ Mum/2001 and 3863/Mum/2006) (Bombay Trib.) d. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. v/s. ACIT in ITA. No. 2212/Mum/2011 (BombayTrib.) e. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. (2006) 6 SOT 497 (Bombay Trib.) f. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (2006) 5 SOT 616 (Bombay Trib.) g. Bank of India v DCIT (2012) 139 ITD 493 (Bombay Trib.) 4. In the current year, the prior period expenses constitute only 0.43% of total revenue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Escorts Ltd. v/…

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 718/CHNY/2011[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 80

…tion. The Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submitted that by referring to the method of accounting followed by the assessee and the judgment of Apex Court in Apollo Tyres (255 ITR 273), this Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee which is reported in 6 SOT 497. Therefore, according to Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by earlier order of this Tribunal. 15. We have heard Dr. Anita Sumanth, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. The Ld.counsel submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 16. We have c…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES LTD., TUTICORIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/CHNY/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 80

…tion. The Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submitted that by referring to the method of accounting followed by the assessee and the judgment of Apex Court in Apollo Tyres (255 ITR 273), this Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee which is reported in 6 SOT 497. Therefore, according to Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by earlier order of this Tribunal. 15. We have heard Dr. Anita Sumanth, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. The Ld.counsel submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 16. We have c…

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. AMAR PLASTICS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby

ITA 8110/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.8810/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit 21(2) M/S. Amar Plastics बनाम/ Room No.508, C-10, 21, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 5Th Floor, Bkc, Bandra (E), Kalpataru Point, Mumbai - 400051 Kamanji Marg, Sion(East) Mumbai - 400022 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfa2724J

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi JoshiFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Naik
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…accounts only for the ascertained liability and not contingent or disputed liability. The above view is submitted by the ratio of the decisions in the case of Saurashtra Cements and Chemical Industries Ltd. 213 ITR 523(Guj.), Sterlite A.Y. 2007-08 Industries 6 SOT 497(MUM), Annarnaria & Tours P.Ltd. 95 TTJ 71, Swadeshi Cotton and Flor Mills 53 ITR 14(SC), Ashok Iron & Steal Coal Mills 199 ITR 815 (Allah.)., Padmavati Raje Cotton Mills 203 ITR 375(Cal.) relied by the appellant. Even otherwise by not claiming such expenditure in earlier years the assessee has not derived any benefit because by not claiming such ex…

PRICE WATERHOUSE COPPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2034/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri K. M. Gupta, AR, B.K. Jain & Alpesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri T. K. Neogi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(3)

…s in the case of Coats of India Ltd vs. DCIT [ITA 561/C/92] by following Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd (181 ITR 493). Further it has been held by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd vs. Addl CIT 6 SOT 497 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Otis Elevators Co (India) Ltd. (supra) and that of the Gujarat High court in the case of Gujarat State Export Corpn. Ltd vs. CIT 209 ITR 649 (Guj) and observed that aforesaid Courts had laid down the principle that payment of club fees is to be considered for the promotion of the business…