Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

6 SCC 117Supreme Court of India1997#3489 most cited

What is Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras authority for?

Interest earned on investments made from the principal amount of a fund, even if the principal itself was not brought to tax, can be brought to tax.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v. CIT · Section 10(20A) · Section 10(20) · Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund · IDRF · taxation of interest · taxation of principal

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12ASection 12AA
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)advancement of general public utilitysection 58section 10(20)purposive interpretationsection 12aa(3)section 60section 13(8)section 13(3)section 13(1)(c)corpus fundproviso to section 2(15)

Judgments citing Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

Ask Property Investment Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1810/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ITA No.1810/Mum/2017 & 1635/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year : 2012-13& 2010-11) M/s. Ask Property Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Investment Advisors Private Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) Limited Mumbai Biral Aurora, 16 Level, Office Floor 9 Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai – 400030 PAN/GIR No. AAHCA5652N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue by Ms. Samatha Mullamudi Date of Hearing 26/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement 04/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): These appeals…

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. Sri VAraha Laxmi Nrusimha Swamy DEvastanam

ITTA/517/2015HC Telangana01 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd

ITTA/493/2015HC Telangana06 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

ITTA/476/2015HC Telangana29 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Balaji Bio MAss Power Pvt. Ltd

ITTA/508/2015HC Telangana06 Jan 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

ITTA/494/2015HC Telangana06 Jan 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd

ITTA/428/2015HC Telangana25 Nov 2015

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

South Ltd) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances, with no

ITA/336/2014HC Delhi21 Sept 2015
Section 260A

…ecision of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. 2015:DHC:7912-DB ITA Nos. 334/2014 & 336/2014 Page 4 of 14 CIT [1997] 6 SCC 117, the AO held that setting off the interest income of the pre-operative period against the interest expense was not allowed. It was held that "interest expense will form part of the pre-operative expenses pending capitalization and the interest income will be taxed separately as income from other sources." The interest income of Rs. 81,00,165 wa…

South Ltd) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances, with no

ITA/334/2014HC Delhi21 Sept 2015
Section 260A

…ecision of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. 2015:DHC:7912-DB ITA Nos. 334/2014 & 336/2014 Page 4 of 14 CIT [1997] 6 SCC 117, the AO held that setting off the interest income of the pre-operative period against the interest expense was not allowed. It was held that "interest expense will form part of the pre-operative expenses pending capitalization and the interest income will be taxed separately as income from other sources." The interest income of Rs. 81,00,165 wa…

M/S. Uniworth Textiles Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Raipur

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006060-006060 - 2003Supreme Court22 Jan 2013
Section 112Section 130Section 25Section 3Section 5A

…Page 1 JUDGMENT REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6060 OF 2003 M/S. UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD. — APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR — RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T D.K. JAIN, J. 1. This appeal under Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short “the Act”) arises from the final Order No. 142/03-B dated 18.02.2003, passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has upheld the levy of customs duty on the i…

M/S. Uniworth Textiles Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Raipur

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006060-006060 - 2003Supreme Court22 Jan 2013
Section 112Section 130Section 25Section 3Section 5A

…Page 1 JUDGMENT REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6060 OF 2003 M/S. UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD. — APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR — RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T D.K. JAIN, J. 1. This appeal under Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short “the Act”) arises from the final Order No. 142/03-B dated 18.02.2003, passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has upheld the levy of customs duty on the i…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd

C.A. No.-003860-003860 - 2006Supreme Court12 Nov 2010

Bench: Us In This Appeal Filed Under Section 130-E Of The Customs Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 1

Section 11ASection 130

…ful mis-statement or suppression or contravention of any provision of any Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case.” 14) In the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, (1995) 6 SCC 117, it is held: “Now so far as fraud and collusion are concerned, it is evident that the requisite intent, i.e., intent to evade duty is built into these very words. So far as mis-statement or suppression of facts are concerned, they are clearly qualified by the word "wilful" preceding the words "mis-statement or suppression of facts"…

Commnr. of Customs, Calcutta vs. M/S. Biecco Lawrie Ltd

C.A. No.-002018-002019 - 2002Supreme Court01 Feb 2008
For Respondent: Biecco Lawrie Ltd
Section 130Section 49

…own, in which case, the importer stands to gain.\024 19. The same principle was laid down by this Court in Dhiraj Lal H. Vohra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [1993 Suppl.(3) SCC 453] and in Union of India & Ors. vs. Apar Private Ltd. & Ors. [(1999) 6 SCC 117]. 20. There is no dispute that where the imported goods are allowed to be warehoused under Section 68 of the Act and are subsequently cleared from the warehouse, the rate as applicable on the date of actual removal of the goods from the warehouse, is applicable. But where the goods are cleared for home consumption under Section 46…

M/S. Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs. Comnr. of Customs

Appeals are dismissed but in

C.A. No.-000821-000821 - 2000Supreme Court25 Jan 2001
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

…ths to five years was present. Our attention was drawn to the cases of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. M/s Chemphar Drugs and Liniments, Hyderabad (1989) 2 SCC 127 , Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1995) 6 SCC 117, M/s Padmini Products vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore (1989) 4 SCC 275, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Another 1995 Supp (1) SCC 50 and Collector of Central Excise vs. H.M.M. Limited 1995 (76) ELT 497. In all these cases the Court was concerned with http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF…