Surana Steels P Ltd. v. DCIT

237 ITR 777Supreme Court of India1999#5731 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 11 previous year prescribed transfer section 143 person company india section 14 section 143(3)business document

Judgments citing Surana Steels P Ltd. v. DCIT

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 312/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 194C

…nd will accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 1997-98 and subsequent years. " 18 I.T.A. No.312/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mega Engineers & Builders 7.6.3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surana Steels P Ltd vs DCIT reported in (1999) 237 ITR 777 at page 783 considered the legislative intent for the introduction of section 1151. It was found that the section was introduced to take care of the phenomenon of prosperous zero-tax companies which had continued inspite of the enactment of section 80VV A. These were companies which were paying no income tax though they had profits and were decla…

M/S. BIRLA EDUTECH LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(18)Section 3Section 79

…Edutech Ltd. Companies Act, the same cannot be treated as a private company for the purposes of section 79 read with section 2(18) of the Act. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surana Steels (P) Limited VS DCIT & Ors (1999) 237 ITR 777 (SC).” 22. Therefore, according to Ld. AR since the assessee company’s more than 50 per cent of the shares were held by a public company consequently M/s. BSEL (public company) became the holding company of the assessee-company. Therefore, it was explicit that the assessee-company, by fulfilling the requisite conditions, became a company in whic…

ITO, WARD-32(4), NEW DELHI vs. SWATI OBEROI, NEW DELHI

ITA 4150/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR

Section 54ESection 54F

…in favour of the assessee in the light of the provisions contained u/s 2(47)(v)(vi) of the Act as well as u/s 53 of the Transfer of Property Act by following the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case 8 ITA No.4150/Del./2018 of Surana Steel vs. DCIT 237 ITR 777 (SC) by returning following findings :- “70. A plain reading of the above provision shows that it provides a safety measure or a shield in the hands of the transferee to protect the possess ion of any property which has been given by the transferor as lawful possession under a particular agreement of sale. This position of law was incorporated…

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shankar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 211Section 40

…e proposed section. The proposed amendment will take effect from 1-4-1997, and will accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 1997-98 and subsequent years. " 7.6.3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surana Steels P Ltd vs DCIT reported in (1999) 237 ITR 777 at page 783 considered the legislative intent for the introduction of section 1151. It was found that the section was introduced to take care of the phenomenon of prosperous zero-tax companies which had continued inspite of the enactment of section 80VV A. These were companies which were paying no income tax though they had profits and were decla…

DCIT/ACIT, LTU-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 806/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata........................................................................................Appellant 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. United Bank Of India……………………………………………………............................Respondent 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 806/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. United Bank Of India…………………………………………………….......................Cross-Objector 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata....................................................................................Respondent 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri I. Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 17, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal Read As Under:

Section 115JSection 1ISection 2(5)Section 211

…f MAT, the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No.2 ) Bill, 1996 on the subject of MAT and relevant rules of legal interpretation. The tribunal also placed reliance on the following decisions:- * Surana Steels P Ltd vs DCIT reported in (1999) 237 ITR 777 (SC) * State Bank of Hyderabad vs DCIT reported in (2013) 33 taxmann.com 312 (Hyderabad - Tribunal) vide order dated 7.9.2012 *Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs JCIT reported in (2002) 82 ITD 422 (Mumbai Tribunal) vide order dated 6.8.2001 ITA Nos.1916/K/12 & 113/K/13-C-AM United Bank of India 2 *Kerala State Electricity Board vs DCIT report…

RAJENDRA SHIP BREAKERS PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2177/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2177/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Rajendra Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., D-79, Kalvibid, Vs. Circle-1, Nr. Ram Mantra Mandir, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. Pan: Aabcr0105P

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R

…rat Textile Mills Ltd. - (2017) 79 taxmann.com 209 - GujaratHC; • Surat Textile Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT - (2016) 70 taxmann.com 158 -Ahmedabad ITAT; • Surat Textile Mills Ltd. vs. ITO - 1469/Ahd/2015 - Ahmedabad ITAT; • . Surana Steels (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT - (1999) 237 ITR 777 - SC. Asstt. Year 2014-15 7 14.1 The reliance of the AO on the ratio of two judgments delivered by Hon'ble Madras High Court and ITAT Mumbai respectively is clearly ill-founded as clarified hereunder: 14.2 In so far as the reliance of the AO on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madras Fertilizers Ltd., as reported…

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 584/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 40

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIR -6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1178/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 2(5)Section 211

…MAT, the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No.2 ) Bill, 1996 on the subject of MAT and relevant rules of legal interpretation. The tribunal also placed reliance on the following decisions:- * Surana Steels P. Ltd vs DCIT reported in (1999) 237 ITR 777 (SC); Assessment Year: 2003-2004 * State Bank of Hyderabad vs –DCIT reported in (2013) 33 taxmann.com 312 (Hyderabad- Tribunal) vide order dated 7.9.2012; *Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs JCIT reported in (2002) 82 ITD 422 (Mumbai Tribunal) vide order dated 6.8.2001; *Kerala State Electricity Board vs DCIT reported in (2010) 329 ITR 91…

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTAN HEAVY CHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2816/KOL/2013[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

…e High Court went on to analyse section 115J of the Act as well as section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956. Thereafter the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court referred to the cases of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT AIR 2002 SC 2131 and Surana Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1999) 237 ITR 777 (SC) held that the admitted position is for the previous year ending on 31.03.1989 the loss of the assessee was shown as Rs.16,48,74,073/- for the self same period the amount of depreciation claimed was Rs.138,56,66,473/-. The question before the Bench was whether the amount of depreciation being less than the amount of loss should be required to…

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (SUCESSOR OF HINDUSTHAN HEAVY CHEMICALS LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2815/KOL/2013[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

SBI DFHI LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7433/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7433/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Sbi Dfhi Limited Asst. Cit, Range 2(1), बनाम/ 23, 3Rd Floor, Voltas House, J. N. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Heradia Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 0532 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhavin Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 15.10.2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 23.11.2010. 2 Sbi Dfhi Limited Vs. Asst. Cit 2. The Sole Issue, Agitated Per Four Grounds By The Assessee, As Under, Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Assessee’S Claim For Unabsorbed Deposition (For Rs.41,68,938/-) In The Computation Of Its’ Book Profit U/S. 115 Jb Of The Act, At Rs. 4 Lacs, I.E., At A Little Over 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded Thereon: ‘1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(L)(C) Of The Act By The Learned Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 SBI DFHI Limited vs. Asst. CIT आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7433/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) SBI DFHI Limited Asst. CIT, Range 2(1), बनाम/ 23, 3rd Floor, Voltas House, J. N. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Heradia Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACD 0532 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Bhavin Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Vachaspati…

DIPSC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I T CIR - VI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 890/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 211Section 616

…e proposed amendment will take effect from 1-4-1997, and will accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 1997-98 and subsequent years.” 9 DPSC Ltd. A.Y.2007-08 4.8.3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surana Steels P ltd vs DCIT reported in (1999) 237 ITR 777 at page 783 considered the legislative intent for the introduction of section 115J. It was found that the section wsa introduced to take care of the phenomenon of prosperous zero-tax companies which had continued inspite of the enactment of section 80VVA. These were companies which were paying no income tax though they had profits and were declar…

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR- 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1916/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: None appeared

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(5)Section 211Section 40

…MAT, the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No.2 ) Bill, 1996 on the subject of MAT and relevant rules of legal interpretation. The tribunal also placed reliance on the following decisions:- * Surana Steels P Ltd vs DCIT reported in (1999) 237 ITR 777 (SC) * State Bank of Hyderabad vs DCIT reported in (2013) 33 taxmann.com 312 (Hyderabad – Tribunal) vide order dated 7.9.2012 *Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs JCIT reported in (2002) 82 ITD 422 (Mumbai Tribunal) vide order dated 6.8.2001 ITA Nos.1916/K/12 & 113/K/13-C-AM United Bank of India 2 *Kerala State Electricity Board vs DCIT repo…

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the asssesse in ITA No

ITA 1768/KOL/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2002-2003

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri D.S Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Srivastava, CIT, ld.DR

Section 115JSection 254Section 29Section 36(1)(viia)

…he proposed section. The proposed amendment will take effect from 1-4-1997, and will accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 1997-98 and subsequent years.” 7.6.3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surana Steels P ltd vs DCIT reported in (1999) 237 ITR 777 at page 783 considered the legislative intent for the introduction of section 115J. It was found that the section wsa introduced to take care of the phenomenon of prosperous zero-tax companies which had continued inspite of the enactment of section 80VVA. These were companies which were paying no income tax though they had profits and were declar…

COMMR OF INCOME TAX HYD vs. M/S.TAHER ENGG CORP. SECBAD

ITTA/85/2002HC Telangana03 Feb 2012

Bench: The Commissioner (Appeals). Through Order, Dated 04.12.1991, The Commissioner Allowed The Appeal & It Was Held That The Applicant Is Entitled To Treat The Unabsorbed Depreciation As Loss. Thereupon, The Department Carried The Matter In Appeal By Filing Ita.No.728/Hyd/1992 Before The Tribunal. The Tribunal Allowed The Appeal Through Its Order, Dated 28.08.1995 & Took The View That The Unabsorbed Depreciation Cannot Be Treated As Loss For The Purpose Of Section 115-J Of The Act.

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 155Section 256(1)

…to above are answered in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J __________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY,J 12.08.2014 v v [1] 207 ITR 508 [2] 237 ITR 777 (SC)…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX vs. KHATRI HOTELS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1323 / 2008HC Delhi15 Apr 2009

Section 143Section 158

…alf of the respondent/assessee in 29. ITA 1202/2008 referred to the principle of incorporation. In that context he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors: 237 ITR 777. The Supreme Court quoted the following passage from the Principles of Statutory Interpretation (7th edition, 1999) by Justice GP (1)Singh:- "Incorporation of an earlier act into a later act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier act into the later. Whe…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PAWAN GUPTA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 200 / 2008HC Delhi15 Apr 2009

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 158

…alf of the respondent/assessee in ITA 1202/2008 referred to the principle of incorporation. In that context he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors: 237 ITR 777. The Supreme Court quoted the following passage from the Principles of Statutory Interpretation (7th edition, 1999) by Justice GP Singh:- "Incorporation of an earlier act into a later act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier act into the later.…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PAWAN GUPTA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/200/2008HC Delhi15 Apr 2009

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 158

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL I vs. SAIN PROCESSSING & WEAVING MILLS P.LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/1128/2007HC Delhi17 Dec 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mr R D JollyFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260A

…e of the aforesaid order of remand, the CIT(A) was directed by the Tribunal to decide the case afresh, in accordance with, the judgment of the ITA 1128-2007 Page 4 of 16 Supreme Court in the case of Surana Steels Pvt Ltd v. D.C.I.T. & Ors (1999) 237 ITR 777. 2.6 The CIT(A), by his order dated 03.11.2003, disallowed the claim of the assessee with regard to the deduction of depreciation for the current year while, determining the “book profit” under Section 115J of the Act; on the ground that the depreciation for the current year had not been charged to the profit and loss account. 2.7 The CIT…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL I vs. SAIN PROCESSSING & WEAVING MILLS P.LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1128 / 2007HC Delhi17 Dec 2008

For Appellant: Mr R D JollyFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260A

…appeal. By virtue of the aforesaid order of remand, the CIT(A) was directed by the Tribunal to decide the case afresh, in accordance with, the judgment of the 2008:DHC:3362-DB Supreme Court in the case of Surana Steels Pvt Ltd v. D.C.I.T. & Ors (1999) 237 ITR 777. 2.6 The CIT(A), by his order dated 03.11.2003, disallowed the claim of the assessee with regard to the deduction of depreciation for the current year while, determining the “book profit” under Section 115J of the Act; on the ground that the depreciation for the current year had not been charged to the profit and loss account. 2.7 The CIT…