What is Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 41(1), Section 14A, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 37(1).

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (227 ITR 172)

Q: How many judgments cite Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT?

621 judgments on BharatTax cite Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (227 ITR 172), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 1989/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2018/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Jcit (Osd), Il & Fs Tamilnadu Power Corporate Circle -2(2), Vs. Company Ltd., Chennai – 34. New No.2, (Old No.21), 4Th Floor, Kpr Tower, 1St Street, Subba Rao Avenue, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aabcf 1176A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1989, 1990 & 3217/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Jcit (Osd), Il & Fs Tamilnadu Power Corporate Circle -2(2), Company Ltd., Vs. Chennai – 34. New No.2, (Old No.21), 4Th Floor, Kpr Tower, 1St Street, Subba Rao Avenue, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aabcf 1176A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghunath, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022

For Appellant: Shri Raghunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…00] 243 ITR 2. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR stated that issue is covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of 7 I.T.A. Nos.2018/Chny/2019 & ITA Nos.1989, 1990 & 3217/Chny/2019 Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., vs. CIT, 227 ITR 172. The ld.Senior DR also filed written submissions consisting of 13 pages but the Revenue in its written submissions could not distinguish the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills and Bokaro Steel Ltd., supra. 7. After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts, we noted that the facts are un…

DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4348/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56

…umstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that the assessee ratio decidendi as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) and CIT vs. Coromandal Cement Ltd (1998) 234 ITR 412 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case?” I.T.A. No. 4348/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2013-14) “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in holding that interest income of Rs 18,96,92,680/- earned on surplus funds during the pre-commen…

JCIT(OSD), Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3264/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56

…umstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that the assessee ratio decidendi as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) and CIT vs. Coromandal Cement Ltd (1998) 234 ITR 412 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case?” I.T.A. No. 4348/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2013-14) “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in holding that interest income of Rs 18,96,92,680/- earned on surplus funds during the pre-commen…

Principal Commissioner Income Tax 4, Kolkata vs. International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

ITAT/421/2016HC Calcutta01 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 01, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv., ….For Appellant Ga/1/2016 (Old No. Ga/3475/2016) The Court : There Is A Delay Of 63 Days In Filing The Appeal. Affidavit-Of-Service Has Been Filed By The Appellant On 5Th July, 2017 Stating That The Notice Sent By Registered Post With Acknowledgement Due Has Been Served Upon The Respondent/Assessee On 29Th October, 2016. Despite Service Of Notice Respondent Did Not Appear. In Any Event, The Delay Is Only 63 Days And, Therefore, We Exercise Our Discretion To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Allowed.

Section 260A

…O - 4 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/421/2016 IA NO: GA/1/2016 (OLD NO. GA/3475/2016) GA/2/2016 (OLD NO. GA/3477/2016) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4, KOLKATA VS. INTERNATIONAL SEAPORTSL (HALDIA) PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : AUGUST 01, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv., ….for appellant GA/1/2016 (OLD NO. GA/3475/2016) The Court : There is a delay of 63 days in filing the appeal. Affidavit-of-service has been filed by…

Teh DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Metro Link Express for Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad Mega Co. Ltd, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 1754/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, &For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

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

…by the Assessing Officer and held that the interest income is to be treated as revenue in nature and liable to be taxable under the “income from other sources” and relied upon Supreme Court judgment in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172 (SC). However he could not produce any judgment in favour of the Revenue. 5.1. Per contra Ld. Senior Counsel Shri S.N. Soparkar appearing for the assessee placed on record a Paper Book of case laws, which are as follows: I.T.A No. 1754/Ahd/2019 & C.O. No. 38-Ahd-2014 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 8 DCIT vs. Metro Link Express for Gandhinagar and Ahmedab…

Courtyard Real Estate Pvt. Ltd, `Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

ITA 2312/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Abyt Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Courtyard Real Estate Private Limited 1St Floor, Windsor, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz East Mumbai-400098 Pan: Aadcr0870K ...... Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..…Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Jitendra Jain, Ca Respondent By : Shri Shyam Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As Cit (A)] Vide Order Dated 26.10.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Solitary Issue Disputed In Appeal Is As Under: “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Treating The Interest Income Earned On Fixed Deposits (Fd) Of Rs. 60,49,527/- As “Income From Other Sources” For The Year As Against Reducing The Same From The Total Cost Of Work In Progress. 2. The Appellant Submits That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Interest Income Earned On Fd Of Rs. 60,49,527/- Reduces The Interest Cost On Funds Borrowed For The Project & Thus Has Been Rightly Reduced From The Cost Of Project. 3. Your Appellant Craves Leave To Add, To Alter, Or To Amend The Aforesaid Grounds Of Appeal. 2 M/S Courtyard Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee-Company Is In The Business Of Real Estates Development & Construction. It Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2017- 18 On 30.3.2018 Declaring Income For The Year At Rs. 56,72,910/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Was Constructing A Residential Project At Pokhran Road No 2, Thane. It Was Following Percentage Completion Method (Pcm) Of Accounting For Revenue Recognition.

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Joshi, Sr. DR

…ed on such deposit is incidental to the acquisition of assets for the setting up of the plant and machinery. In this view of the matter the ratio laid down by this Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 387 : (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) : TC S38.3460, will not be attracted. The more appropriate decision in the factual situation in the present case is in CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 151 CTR (SC) 276 : (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC). The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” (c) CIT vs Paramount Premises (P) Ltd [190 ITR 0259 (Bom HC)] “2. The Tribunal has gi…

Hablis Hotels, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 1690/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:1690/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Mr. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Ravindra T. Mishra, JCIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 57

…apital in :: 3 :: I.T.A No.:1690/CHNY/2019 nature. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also, relying on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 227 ITR 172 confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by disallowing the interest paid. Aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and had gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the Assessee has earned a bank interest on the idle funds available with it including the l…

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2193/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…ery. Hence, any income earned on such deposit is incidental to the acquisition of assets for the setting up of the plant and machinery. In this view of the matter the ratio laid down by this Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172, will not be attracted. The more appropriate decision in the factual situation in the present case is in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 6.4. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC)…

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2192/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

…ery. Hence, any income earned on such deposit is incidental to the acquisition of assets for the setting up of the plant and machinery. In this view of the matter the ratio laid down by this Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172, will not be attracted. The more appropriate decision in the factual situation in the present case is in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 6.4. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC)…

M/S. Sai Siddhi Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(40, Mumbai

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

ITA 2190/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

…ery. Hence, any income earned on such deposit is incidental to the acquisition of assets for the setting up of the plant and machinery. In this view of the matter the ratio laid down by this Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172, will not be attracted. The more appropriate decision in the factual situation in the present case is in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 6.4. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC)…

Shree Sai Consultants, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2188/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)

…ery. Hence, any income earned on such deposit is incidental to the acquisition of assets for the setting up of the plant and machinery. In this view of the matter the ratio laid down by this Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172, will not be attracted. The more appropriate decision in the factual situation in the present case is in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 6.4. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC)…

Tal Manufacturing Solutions Ltd., Nagpur vs. Asst CIT 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 90/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

…rmed as compensation should be treated as interest earned prior to commencement of business and taxed separately under the head „income from other sources‟ in the light of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals reported in 227 ITR 172 (SC). 2.8. It is not in dispute that the assessee had entered into aerospace project with Boeing Co. and started making investments in the said project. Though the assessee was ready to commence its activities from the said project during the year under consideration, the same got delayed at the behest of Boeing Co. as they were suggesting some m…

Tal Manufacturing Solutions Ltd., Nagpur vs. Asst CIT 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 89/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)

…rmed as compensation should be treated as interest earned prior to commencement of business and taxed separately under the head „income from other sources‟ in the light of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals reported in 227 ITR 172 (SC). 2.8. It is not in dispute that the assessee had entered into aerospace project with Boeing Co. and started making investments in the said project. Though the assessee was ready to commence its activities from the said project during the year under consideration, the same got delayed at the behest of Boeing Co. as they were suggesting some m…

Hike Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2906/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

…iry about commencement of business and without verifying the submissions made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also not considered the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 227 ITR 172, in which it has been held that business had not been commenced, the interest income would be assessable under the head 'Income from other sources'. That the 5 ITA No.2906/Del./2018 assessment was completed without looking into the complete facts, resulting in loss to the revenue. That in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 8…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2181/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Income Tax, Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Corporate Circle 1(2), Rail Depot, P.H. Road, Opp. To Daniel Chennai 600 034. Thomas School, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. [Pan: Aadcc2233K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 14.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Common Ground Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Only Common Ground Raised In Both The Appeals Relates To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Interest Income.

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 14Section 4

…items A to E. therefore in the present case the income is chargeable to tax under the head Income from Other sources. The assessee has further countered that, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd Vs CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC) deals with only interest earned out of "surplus" funds, which is not the case of the assessee where the funds are parked temporarily. The submissions of the assessee are not acceptable. Even in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. the funds that were borrowed for the purpose of the setting up of the plant was invested…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2180/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Income Tax, Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Corporate Circle 1(2), Rail Depot, P.H. Road, Opp. To Daniel Chennai 600 034. Thomas School, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. [Pan: Aadcc2233K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 14.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Common Ground Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Only Common Ground Raised In Both The Appeals Relates To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Interest Income.

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 14Section 4

…items A to E. therefore in the present case the income is chargeable to tax under the head Income from Other sources. The assessee has further countered that, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd Vs CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC) deals with only interest earned out of "surplus" funds, which is not the case of the assessee where the funds are parked temporarily. The submissions of the assessee are not acceptable. Even in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. the funds that were borrowed for the purpose of the setting up of the plant was invested…

DCIT Circle-12(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Synthetic Rubber Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4833/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Supreme Court & Matter Has Not Reached Finality?”

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Shastri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Senior DR

…AO during the assessment proceedings - which were similar to the submissions made before me herein above 6.2.1 The AO taxed it as income from other sources on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd (1997) 227 ITR 172. The AO made addition following the orders of AO on this issue, of the previous year. 6.3 In appeal the Ld. AR has submitted a copy of the ITAT order dated 7-02- 2018 in ITA No. 4827/ Del/2017 for AY 2013-14 by Bench G in its own case where in this very issue regarding the interest earned during the period of setting up of industry as capable of…

DCIT, Corporate Circle -1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Posco India Private Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 423/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.09/Ctk/2020 (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/Shri A.K.SabatFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (

Section 250

…ting up of a factory. iii.) Investing monies in the mutual funds or FDS is neither the business of the assessee company not incidental to its main business. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (227 ITR 172) that it is totally immaterial whether the funds were raised by the issue of share or debentures. If the money lying idle is put into FDs, then interest income so earned would be revenue in nature chargeable to Lax. iv.) In the case of Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd. Vs. DOT (35 taxmann.com 591), the Honourable Mumbai LI AT deciding the…

Sri. Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2474/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…ubmissions and we find that the issue on merit in the present two years was decided by the CIT (A) against the assessee by following the judgment of Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemical & Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 227 ITR 172 and in our considered opinion also, in the facts of the present case, this judgment is applicable and therefore, we confirm the order of CIT (A) in both the years on this issue.” 3.3 Being so, taking a consistent view on the issue, we decide this issue against the assessee. 4. Ground No.2 in ITA No.1910/Bang/2019 is as follows:- “The CIT(A)-7 i…

Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…ubmissions and we find that the issue on merit in the present two years was decided by the CIT (A) against the assessee by following the judgment of Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemical & Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 227 ITR 172 and in our considered opinion also, in the facts of the present case, this judgment is applicable and therefore, we confirm the order of CIT (A) in both the years on this issue.” 3.3 Being so, taking a consistent view on the issue, we decide this issue against the assessee. 4. Ground No.2 in ITA No.1910/Bang/2019 is as follows:- “The CIT(A)-7 i…

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

What is Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai

DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd, New Delhi

JCIT(OSD), Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd, New Delhi

Principal Commissioner Income Tax 4, Kolkata vs. International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt Ltd

Teh DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Metro Link Express for Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad Mega Co. Ltd, Gandhinagar

Courtyard Real Estate Pvt. Ltd, `Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai

Hablis Hotels, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -5(4), Mumbai

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

M/S. Sai Siddhi Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(40, Mumbai

Shree Sai Consultants, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

Tal Manufacturing Solutions Ltd., Nagpur vs. Asst CIT 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

Tal Manufacturing Solutions Ltd., Nagpur vs. Asst CIT 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

Hike Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit-6, New Delhi

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

DCIT Circle-12(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Synthetic Rubber Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, Corporate Circle -1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Posco India Private Limited, Bhubaneswar

Sri. Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bengaluru

Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bangalore