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 371,900 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

M/S. 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 6114/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 2002/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…

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 1731/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…

Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-02, New Delhi

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

ITA 4341/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…, ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer without making enquiries into the claim of the assessee and in view of the decision in the case of M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172, the taxability of such interest needs to be examined and for non-examination of the same, the order renders itself erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. According to the ld. PCIT, during the course of scrutiny proceedings, assessee merely provided a chart showing bifurcation of inventory and the ITR reconciliat…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1937/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

…tances are as under: a. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) b. Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) c. State bank of India vs. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 67 (SC) d. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) 5 M/s Sarva UP Gramin Bank e. CIT vs. Valikundam Rubber Co. Ltd. (2000) 241 ITR 50 (Ker.) 2. In column no. 6 of part OI of ITR, we have disallowed the amount of provision of bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 16,06,72,355/- as the provision for bad and doubtful debts is not allowable in general as per provisions of Income Tax Act. However, the b…

M/S. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 937/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: 16.09.2019
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य के सम' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2003-04 v. M/s. Southern Petrochemical The Commissioner of Industries Corporation Ltd., Income-tax, C/o M/s. Subbarayar Aiyar Chennai-III Padmanabhan & Ramamani Chennai- Advocates, New No.75A (Old No.105A), Dr. Radhakirshnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai -600004. [PAN: AAACS4668K] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent) : Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6597/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri A.N. Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…facts & law of the case in allowing capitalization of interest on FDRs earned during the period of construction without considering various decisions of the Courts including the following: - (i) Tuticorin Alkali Chemical and Fertilizers Limited Vs. CIT(SC) 227 ITR 172 (ii) CIT Vs Coromandal Cements Ltd. (SC) 234 ITR 412 (iii) CIT Vs Autokast Ltd. (SC) 248 ITR 110 (iv) CIT Vs Kishan Sahakari Chini Mills (All) 280 ITR 617 (v) CIT Vs Manipur Spinning Mills Corpn. Ltd. (Gau) 226 ITR 551.” 3. The facts, in brief, qua the issue involved, are that the assessee company was in process of construction of a hotel and ha…

Dlf Info City Developers (Kolkata) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- I, Gurgaon

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

ITA 894/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Dlf Info City Vs. Acit Development (Kolkata) Circle- I Limited, 3Rd Floor, Shopping Gurugram Mall Complex, Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, Gurugram Pan No. Aabcd9621N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 57Section 80I

…ment of the assessee that such interest expenditure is an allowable expenditure u/s. 57 (iii) is concerned he also rejected the same by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. reported in 227 ITR 172 and various other decisions. He accordingly enhanced the income and directed the AO to compute the income of Rs.28,15,89,000/- as against the returned income of Rs.7,85,61,550/-. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :- 1.1 That CIT(A) has erred on facts and in…

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2538/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2538/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Ward – 4(2), Md Chambers, New No.53, Chennai – 34. Dr.R.K. Salai, Mylaypore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aaacn 9369E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath,CIT
Section 36(1)Section 56Section 57

…Steel Ltd, 236 ITR 315 and M/s. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 234 ITR 2. However the Assessing Officer relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Autokast Ltd., 248 ITR 110 and Tutikorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 172 and assessed the income U/s.56. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding that the AO has countered the decisions relied on by the assessee, which have binding nature. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal with the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the…

Pawansut Dwellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 317/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: S/shri. Uttam Chand Bothra&
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 57

…d. was not allowable as a deduction under Sec. 36(1)(iii). The Ld. D.R relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. D.R further relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC). It was submitted by the Ld. D.R, that in the absence of a direct nexus between the interest received and the amounts borrowed by the assessee from DHFL, it was rightly held by the lower authorities that the assessee would also not be eligible for claim of deduction of the interest paid on the aforesaid loans under Sec. 57(iii) of the Act.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3805/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…ence of any statutory definition or other indication to the contrary." 16.9 The learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 387 : (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) to buttress her submission that accountancy principles cannot override the provisions of the Act. This proposition is unassailable. One cannot take resort to a principle or rule of accountancy when the Act provides specifically for the situation at hand. But when the situation is one where there is no definitive provision, a Court can take r…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 705/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…ence of any statutory definition or other indication to the contrary." 16.9 The learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 387 : (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) to buttress her submission that accountancy principles cannot override the provisions of the Act. This proposition is unassailable. One cannot take resort to a principle or rule of accountancy when the Act provides specifically for the situation at hand. But when the situation is one where there is no definitive provision, a Court can take r…

DCIT, Circle-11(1) vs. Ircon International Ltd

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2234/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…ence of any statutory definition or other indication to the contrary." 16.9 The learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 387 : (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) to buttress her submission that accountancy principles cannot override the provisions of the Act. This proposition is unassailable. One cannot take resort to a principle or rule of accountancy when the Act provides specifically for the situation at hand. But when the situation is one where there is no definitive provision, a Court can take r…

Ircon International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3804/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…ence of any statutory definition or other indication to the contrary." 16.9 The learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 387 : (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) to buttress her submission that accountancy principles cannot override the provisions of the Act. This proposition is unassailable. One cannot take resort to a principle or rule of accountancy when the Act provides specifically for the situation at hand. But when the situation is one where there is no definitive provision, a Court can take r…

Ircon International Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-11

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1825/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…ence of any statutory definition or other indication to the contrary." 16.9 The learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 387 : (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) to buttress her submission that accountancy principles cannot override the provisions of the Act. This proposition is unassailable. One cannot take resort to a principle or rule of accountancy when the Act provides specifically for the situation at hand. But when the situation is one where there is no definitive provision, a Court can take r…

M/S Tenughat Emta Coal Mines Ltd., Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Ranchi

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

ITA 56/RAN/2015[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Manish Mallick Adv & L.N.Mallick, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148

…has rightly been adjusted against the cost of project as the business was yet co commence. Ld A.R. lastly pointed out that Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been pleased to distinguish the proposition rendered in the case of Tuticorin Alkali & Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 172, as relied by the AO for making addition/disallowance and Hon’ble High Court clearly held that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. Ld counsel for the assessee summed up his arguments with the submission that in view of another decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Conso…

Gspc Pipavav Power Company Ltd.-Gppc, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar &For Respondent: Shri/Ms. Sonia Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…a) and Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra) at length, held at pages 258, 259 and 260 of report, i.e., 315 ITR 255, as under:- 5. In our opinion the Tribunal has misconstrued the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals [1997] 227 ITR 172 and that of Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315. The test which permeates through the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals [1997] 227 ITR 172 is that if funds have been borrowed for setting up of a plant and if the funds are 'surplus' and then by virtue of that circumstance they are invested in fixed deposits the income ea…

Five Stars Bulkcarriers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 590/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vodal Raj Singh
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 92B

…was held by Hon'ble Madras High Court that interest income earned from deposits in banks is to be taxed under the head "income from other sources". Similar observations were made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemical and Fertilizer 227 ITR 172 and Pandian Chemicals 183 CTR 99. Further no netting of interest can be allowed since the interest income is to be taxed under the head "income from other sources" while interest paid is admittedly a business expenditure. Accordingly this contention of the appellant is not acceptable. ii. No submissions have been made with reference to the intere…

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

In the result we affirm the order of ld CIT(A) id affirmed and

ITA 5378/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Hindustan Petroleum The Addl.Cit, Range-1(1), Corporation Ltd., Mumbai 17, Jamashedji Tata Road, V/S Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaach1118B Appellant Respondent

Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…t 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…

ACIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Essar Power Orissa Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is also dismissed

ITA 1504/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh (DR)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…y Tribunal in Solarfield Energy Two Ltd (supra). The coordinate bench of Tribunal in Solarfield Energy Two Pvt Ltd (supra), after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), has passed the following order:- 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record in the light of decisions relied upon. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Undisputed facts are, the assessee was awarded the work of setting-up of Solar Power Plant project in Rajasthan by NWIML. It is a…