Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

227 ITR 172Supreme Court of India1997#96 most cited

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.

621

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 371,887 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT · 227 ITR 172 · Section 28 · Section 56 · Section 57 · income from other sources · business income · interest income · commencement of business · capitalization of interest · year of expenditure claim

Also reported as

141 CTR 387

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 14ASection 40(a)(ia)Section 37(1)Section 147Section 28(iv)

Issues it is cited on

section 57profits and gains of business or professionsection 56section 32revenue expenditureincome from other sourcessection 28section 37(1)capital expendituresection 43section 37previous year

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

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5537/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation The Addl. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Range 1 (1), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Acit-1(1), M/S Hindustan Petroleum Room No. 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Corporation Limited, Mumbai – 20 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe (ARs)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 37

…at AO has treated the Administrative Expenses incurred on Engineering Project and the ld. CIT(A) while considering this ground of appeal concurred with the finding of AO. 19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (227 ITR 172(SC) held that when the question is whether a receipt of money is taxable or not, or whether certain deduction from receipt are permissible in law or not. The question has to be decided according to the principle of law and not in accordance with the Accounting practice. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that Accounting Practices cannot be override sect…

Hindustan Petroleum Corporaiton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4946/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation The Addl. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Range 1 (1), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Acit-1(1), M/S Hindustan Petroleum Room No. 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Corporation Limited, Mumbai – 20 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe (ARs)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 37

…at AO has treated the Administrative Expenses incurred on Engineering Project and the ld. CIT(A) while considering this ground of appeal concurred with the finding of AO. 19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (227 ITR 172(SC) held that when the question is whether a receipt of money is taxable or not, or whether certain deduction from receipt are permissible in law or not. The question has to be decided according to the principle of law and not in accordance with the Accounting practice. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that Accounting Practices cannot be override sect…

Chandraleela Power Energy Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 313/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke M/S. Chandraleela Power Energy Pvt.Ltd The Ito Vs. G-51, Sitapura Industrial Area Ward- 6(3) Tonk Road,Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aadcc 9647 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respo Ndent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Paul, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 09-01-2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Sustaining Action Of The Ao Of Not Treating Rs. 30,19,569/- Being Cost On Civil Engineering Work Carried Out For Laying Foundation Of Solar Power Panels & Proportionate Interest Thereon, As Cost Of Solar Power Plant & Thereby Curtailing

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, JCIT-DR

…t has upheld the addition made by the AO. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Facor Power Plant (supra) after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172(SC) has held in para 11 to 13 as under:- ‘’11. From the above extract, it is evident that the test that is required to be employed is whether the activity which is taken up for setting up of the 9 M/s. Chandraleela Power Energy vs ITO , Ward- 6(3)Jaipur business and the funds which are garnered are inextricably connected to the setting up of th…

ACIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Vesuvius India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 207/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: ShriSoumen Adak, FCA, Shri Aashish Podder, ACA &Shri Prashant
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…the P & L account but to the Reserve Account could not have been allowed as business deduction for the A.Y. 2008-09? Was not the ld. CIT(A) incorrect in not following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals vs. CIT (227 ITR 172) in which the Hon’ble Court has held that even if there is an accounting practice for revenue recognition if it does not agree with the provisions of the Income Tax Act it has to be ignored? 22. Facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows:During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer examined the books of accoun…

ACIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Vesuvius India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 206/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: ShriSoumen Adak, FCA, Shri Aashish Podder, ACA &Shri Prashant
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…the P & L account but to the Reserve Account could not have been allowed as business deduction for the A.Y. 2008-09? Was not the ld. CIT(A) incorrect in not following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals vs. CIT (227 ITR 172) in which the Hon’ble Court has held that even if there is an accounting practice for revenue recognition if it does not agree with the provisions of the Income Tax Act it has to be ignored? 22. Facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows:During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer examined the books of accoun…

ACIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Vesuvius India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1333/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: ShriSoumen Adak, FCA, Shri Aashish Podder, ACA &Shri Prashant
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…the P & L account but to the Reserve Account could not have been allowed as business deduction for the A.Y. 2008-09? Was not the ld. CIT(A) incorrect in not following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals vs. CIT (227 ITR 172) in which the Hon’ble Court has held that even if there is an accounting practice for revenue recognition if it does not agree with the provisions of the Income Tax Act it has to be ignored? 22. Facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows:During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer examined the books of accoun…

Vesuvius India Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1289/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: ShriSoumen Adak, FCA, Shri Aashish Podder, ACA &Shri Prashant
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…the P & L account but to the Reserve Account could not have been allowed as business deduction for the A.Y. 2008-09? Was not the ld. CIT(A) incorrect in not following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals vs. CIT (227 ITR 172) in which the Hon’ble Court has held that even if there is an accounting practice for revenue recognition if it does not agree with the provisions of the Income Tax Act it has to be ignored? 22. Facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows:During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer examined the books of accoun…

DCIT, Ncc - 2 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Sailendra Kumar Kethineni, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2263/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & C.O. No. 104/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No. 2263/Chny/2019] The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Sailendra Kumar Kethineni, Income Tax Vs. No. 61, Greenways Road, R.A. Puram, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aafpk8983P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 10.04.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi & Treating The Sale Of Land In Sholinganallur As Capital Asset On The Basis Of Book Entry Without Appreciating That Book Entries Are Not Determinative Of Income Of Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…ome. It was further submission that mere entries in the books are not determinative of income of the assessee in view of the decisions in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1(SC) & Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC). We find force in the arguments of the ld. DR. When the assessee as admitted another property at Sholinganallur, which was included in the wealth tax return for the assessment year 2012-13 as stock-in-trade, the ld. CIT(A) has not given any justification to treat one property as stock-in-trade and another as fixed asset of same locality. Acc…

Patan Solar Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2164/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Patan Solar Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit-10(3)(2) Room No.509, 5Th Floor, 602, Western Edge-I, Western Express Highway Aayakar Bhavan Borivali (E), Mumbai – 400 M.K. Road, 066 Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp6744A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 57

…st income on loans given by it as income from other business and set off the interest expenditure on borrowings with the same. The ld. AO by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 227 ITR 172, treated the interest income under the head ‘income from other sources’ and correspondingly declined to give deduction and the interest expenditure paid on borrowings. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3 M/s. Patan Solar P. Ltd. 3.1. From the perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31/03/2013, we find that the as…

Dy. C.I.T. - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shoden Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeals stand dismissed

ITA 7388/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ram Lal Negiita Nos.7388, 7389 & 7399 /Mum/2017 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2012-13 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms Bharti SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Mohan
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 57

…/- as business receipt as against treatment of the Assessing Officer as revenue receipt and taxed under the head income from other sources which is supported by the Apex Court decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. V/s CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in not adjudicating upon the disallowance made in respect of interest expenses u/s 57 of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) has treated the interest receipt of Rs.59,11,170/- as business receipt as against treatment of the same by…

Hazaribag Ranchi Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6696/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negihazaribagh Ranchi Vs. Ito-14(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Expressway Ltd. The Il&Fs Financial Center Aaykar Bhawan Plot No.C-22, G Block M.K.Road Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aacch2490J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 234BSection 56(1)

…interest earned from time deposits shall be assessable under the head income from other sources. He, further observed that this legal position has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs CIT 227 ITR 172, where it was held that even, if the surplus funds at the disposal of the assessee, where deployed for earning income like interest etc., but the interest income earned was to be offered to tax under the head income from other sources. The relevant findings of the AO are as under:- 5.6 The submissions made by the assessee has been carefully per…

Sikar Bikaner Highway Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6936/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla with Shri Saurabh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Smiti Samant (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.6936/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Bikaner Highway Ltd. ITO 14(3)(4) AB 482(1), 4th Floor, The IL & FS Financial Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot C-2, G-Block, BKC, Mumbai-400020 Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 vs. PAN : AACCJ3827H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Sandeep Bhalla with Shri Saurabh Shah (AR) Respondent by : Shri Smiti Samant (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 20.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2020 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX…

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

…The Ld.CIT(A) has also enhanced the income of the assesee by adding Rs. 4,68,46,632/-, on account of interest income earned on bank deposits by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee, as well as the revenue have filed the captioned appeals before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground No.1 of assessee appeal is confirmation of disallowances of leave encashment of Rs.1,90,19,660/-. The Ld. AO had made disallowances of Rs.2,23…

Shri Aeshwarya Jain, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Chanchal Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

…rofits and gains of business. That does not mean that until and unless the assessee commences its business, its income from any other source will not be taxed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC). It has been further held that when the question is whether a receipt of money is taxable or not or whether certain deduction from that receipt is principles of law and not in accordance with accountancy practice. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the question as to whether a principal receipt is of the nature of income and falls wit…

Bauer L&T Geo, Jv, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 2514/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

…sh to M/s. Transtroy India Ltd., and the assessee is a sub-contractor for executing part of the work, as per the sub-contract agreement, and therefore relying on the Supreme Court decision in the cases of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd vs CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC) and CIT vs British Paints India Ltd 54 Taxmann 499 (SC), the Ld. CIT(A) held, inter alia, that the accounting policies march step by step together with the provisions of Income Tax Act and what prevails is the provisions of the Act and not the accounting principles. Each assessment year is a self-contained unit and tax of a particular year…

Emaar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 914/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…s is assessable under the head income from “Other sources”. 55. Before us during the arguments, the ld. DR strongly supported the case of the revenue and further relied on the Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (1997) 141 CTR 387 (SC). She argued that the interest income has no nexus with the business and therefore has to be assessed under the head income from ‘other sources’. 56. The ld. AR argued that the assessee company is a SPV floated for the purpose of one project which has no funds of its own and all the funds have been provided by the holding company with intere…

Emaar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 913/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…s is assessable under the head income from “Other sources”. 55. Before us during the arguments, the ld. DR strongly supported the case of the revenue and further relied on the Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (1997) 141 CTR 387 (SC). She argued that the interest income has no nexus with the business and therefore has to be assessed under the head income from ‘other sources’. 56. The ld. AR argued that the assessee company is a SPV floated for the purpose of one project which has no funds of its own and all the funds have been provided by the holding company with intere…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Emaar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5827/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…s is assessable under the head income from “Other sources”. 55. Before us during the arguments, the ld. DR strongly supported the case of the revenue and further relied on the Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (1997) 141 CTR 387 (SC). She argued that the interest income has no nexus with the business and therefore has to be assessed under the head income from ‘other sources’. 56. The ld. AR argued that the assessee company is a SPV floated for the purpose of one project which has no funds of its own and all the funds have been provided by the holding company with intere…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Emaar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2001/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…s is assessable under the head income from “Other sources”. 55. Before us during the arguments, the ld. DR strongly supported the case of the revenue and further relied on the Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (1997) 141 CTR 387 (SC). She argued that the interest income has no nexus with the business and therefore has to be assessed under the head income from ‘other sources’. 56. The ld. AR argued that the assessee company is a SPV floated for the purpose of one project which has no funds of its own and all the funds have been provided by the holding company with intere…

M/S. Emaar Mgf Construction Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1732/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…s is assessable under the head income from “Other sources”. 55. Before us during the arguments, the ld. DR strongly supported the case of the revenue and further relied on the Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (1997) 141 CTR 387 (SC). She argued that the interest income has no nexus with the business and therefore has to be assessed under the head income from ‘other sources’. 56. The ld. AR argued that the assessee company is a SPV floated for the purpose of one project which has no funds of its own and all the funds have been provided by the holding company with intere…