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

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.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 57 profits and gains of business or profession section 56 section 32 revenue expenditure income from other sources section 28 section 37(1)capital expenditure section 43 section 37 previous year

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

Bkp Mining Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1636/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Bkp Mining Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecc 6549 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Sri R. Mohan Reddy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/02/2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri R. Mohan Reddy, DR

…s of the ITAT in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortiam Ltd and Adani Power Limited in support of its claim and also submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Tuticorin Alkalli Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT (227 ITR 172) (SC) was not applicable to it. The Assessing Officer, however, held that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Tuticorin alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (supra) is squarely applicable to the assessee’s case since the assessee-company deposited the ‘surplus funds’ in the HDFC Bank Ltd as Fixed Deposits and earned inte…

Xl India Business Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Xl India Business Vs. Addl. Cit, Services Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-9, New Delhi Ff-101, Building No. G-11, Sarines Sonia Sadan, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi Pan :Aaacx0309A (Appellant) (Respondent) & S.A. No.16/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2145/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Xl India Business Vs. Addl. Cit, Services Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-9, New Delhi Ff-101, Building No. G-11, Sarines Sonia Sadan, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi Pan :Aaacx0309A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 10A(1)Section 10A(4)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…by it with bank as margin money or security for bank guarantee in order to avail of credit facility for its export business has to be treated as ‘income from other sources 5. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.Vs CIT M9971 93 Taxman 502 (SC)/ri9971 227 ITR 172 (SC)/n9971 141 CTR 387 (SC) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that interest earned on short-term investment of funds borrowed for setting-up of factory during construction of factory before commencement of business has to be assessed as income from other sources and/if cannot be said that interest income is not taxable on ground th…

Income Tax Officer vs. M/S. Nagpal Landmarks, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Anil Chaturvedi Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Kudva

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…the claim of interest is admissible as a deduction as business expenditure. The AO however has held that interest income of Rs.77,12,931 is chargeable under the head IFOS relying on the decision of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd Vs. CIT(1997) 227 ITR 172(SC). 1.8 We submit that the facts of Tuticorin (Supra) are different. In the said case the assessee had not commenced business. During construction and establishment of its factory, the company invested in short term deposits funds borrowed for setting up its factory. The assessee claimed that interest income was to be netted off against pre pro…

The ITO, Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, cross objection of the assessee on this score stands allowed

ITA 1430/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1430/Ahd/2015 With Cross Objection No. 114/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 56

…tal projects and hence to be reduced from capital cost. Assessing Officer after examining the various issues found that Appellant's claim is not justified in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkalies, Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 172. Appellant relied upon the other decisions. However, the following extract from the decision of ITA No. 1430/Ahd/15 with CO No. 114/Ahd/2015 [ITO vs. M/s. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd.] A.Y. 2011-12 - 14 - Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkalies, Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., is quite relevant to decide the issue. "For the purpose of setting…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…clature by the assessee or the opinion of the auditor cannot 5.2 be a conclusive basis to disregard and overlook the true nature of the transaction. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 82 ITR 363 (SC) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. i) 227 ITR 172 (SC) Tuticorn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 285 ITR 221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd ii) 6 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the amount received is for the commercial consideration as such same is outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a supplementar…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

The DCIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. V. F. Arvind Brands Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1904/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013 & Cross Objection No. 204/Ahd/2013 (In Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T.(Osd), M/S. V. F. Arvind Brands Pvt. Circle-8, Vs. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Arvind Mills Premises, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aaccv 2727 L (Applicant) (Responent) / Cross Objector

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Smt Aparna M. Agarwal, CIT.D.R

Section 251(1)(a)

…of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co.Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it aba…

Cosmos Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3730/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Cosmos Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O Garg R. Kumar & Associates, Cas, Circle-3(1), 7, Advocate Chambers, New Delhi. Raj Nagar District Centre, Above Dominos Pizza, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaacc6682R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-14, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Sugar. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St March, 2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,36,93,430/- & Income U/S 115Jb At Rs.4,01,70,500/-. This Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 2(14)Section 37

…hich the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter. ” 5.3 Similar view was also expressed in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.vs. CIT 227 ITR 172 whereby it has been held as under: "It is true that this court has very often referred to accounting practice for ascertainment of profit made by a company or value of the assets of a company. But when the question is whether a receipt of money is taxable or not or whether certain deductions from that receipt are permissible in law or not, the qu…

Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Piyush KamalFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40a

…of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 fSC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT f 19791 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it ab…

The DCIT, Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Shyam Corporation, Surat

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 571/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Vs. M/S. Shyam Corporation, Circle - 3, “Silver Crest”, F.P. No.67 & Surat 70, T.P.S. No.14(Pal), Pal, Surat -395 005. [Pan No. Abefs 9360 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr.D.R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

…arned AR no evidence was filed by the assessee to show that the income disclosed during survey proceedings has generated from the projects which are under construction. Relying upon the judgment of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs.CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), such undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.1 lac was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68, 69, 69C of the Act. ITA No.571/A/12 DCIT vs. Shyam corporation Asst.Year – 2008-09 In appeal, the Learned CIT(A) considered the fact that the assessee does not have any other income other than the said business of construction and development of…

M/S. Jaipur Tax Weaving Park Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Her.”

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…hereafter a show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the interest income should not be assessed as “income from other sources” in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd reported in 227 ITR 172. The reply of the assessee was considered but not found acceptable and the Assessing Officer recorded his finding as under:- “For applying particular judicial decision ratio decidendi of decision is relevant. The Escrow account is just an arrangement whereby an independent trusted third party i.e. Bank in this case, receives and disburses money…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ild Millennium Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1259/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 12(1), Vs M/S Ild Millennium Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. B-418, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Pan: Aakcd7170C Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm Challenging The Order Dated 23.12.2015 In Appeal No. 598/2014-15, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi (Ld. Cit(A)), Revenue Preferred This Appeal.

…account should be capitalized to the cost of project and income from other sources should be taxed accordingly. Learned AO placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC). It was submitted by the assessee before the learned AO that the assessee company is currently undertaking only construction of the projects which are still in progress; that certain amounts relating to projects have also been capitalized by the assessee which fact is evident from the schedule of financial statement for the year under consid…

India Metal One Steel Plate Processing Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3497/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 3497/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. India Metal One Steel Plate The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Processing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Tax, Prestige Palladium Bayan, Corporate Circle – 2(2), 6Th Floor, Door No. 129 To 140 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacci 5959F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ'/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

…ture, the AO has assessed the interest income under the head “income from other source”. In doing so, the AO has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Aikali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs CIT reported in [1997] 227 ITR 172 SC. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal with the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’] is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Interest In…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3114/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it a…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3113/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it a…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3112/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it a…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3111/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it a…

M/S Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 5847/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it a…

Conglome Technconstruction Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Dt.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10

ITA 1497/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. S. K. Mutsaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Siddappaji, ACIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 92C

…Page 8 of 20 acquiring and dealing in landed property, the business of the assessee should have been treated as commenced. Interest earned there lay, cannot be treated as pre-operative. The case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT( 1997) 227 ITR 1721 (SC) relates to the assessee company incorporated on 3-12-1971 for the purpose of manufacturing heavy chemicals such as ammoniurn chloride and soda ash. The trial production of the factories of the company commenced on June 30, 1982. For the purpose of setting up of factories, the assessee had taken term loans from various banks and financial in…