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

M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…insists that the same is assessable u/s. 56, i.e., as income from other sources. Toward the same it relies on the decisions in South India Shipping Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 24 (Mad) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC). The assessee, on the other hand, has relied on, inter alia, the decisions in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) and CIT v. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 2 (SC). The question therefore is which of the two sets of decisions is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case? We are not impress…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Designs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1991/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal & And Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate and Ms. Bharti Sharma, CA

…ot be allowed while considering the interest received by 4 ITA-1991/Del/2014 the assessee. She stated that on the facts of the assessee’s case, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT – [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC) would be squarely applicable and, in view of the above decision, the interest payment would not be allowed even while computing the income from other sources. She further submitted that the Assessing Officer has held that interest income is disallowable u/s 14A. Learned CIT(A), without properly appreciating the factual as well as legal posit…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mills India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 1162/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, S.R Complex, No.2, Thavarekere Main Road, S.G Palya, Drc Post, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Aaecb3245M Appellant By : Shri B.R Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit Respondent By : Smt. Prathiba, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 7-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -11-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.R Sunil Kumar Singh, CITFor Respondent: Smt. Prathiba, Advocate

Section 143(3)

…educed this interest income so received from the pre- operative expenses incurred by the company. The AO was, however, of the opinion that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Vs. CIT (227 ITR 172) (SC), interest income is chargeable to tax under the head ‘income from other sources’ and brought the aforesaid interest to tax in the assessee’s hands accordingly. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 30/4/2014 for asst. year 2012-13, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-1, ITA No.1162/B/16 3 Bangalore. The ld CIT(A)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Arun Dagar, Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4565/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 56Section 57(3)

…that the assessee had made an investment in commercial property ignoring the fact that the unit allotted to the assessee was a house property; (xiv) Not applying the ratio of decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd Vs. CIT(1997) 227 ITR 172(Hon'ble Supreme Court) which is fully applicable in this case. 3. The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No. 4565/DEL/2013 “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in: (viii) Reducing the addition of Rs.40,56,252/-/to Rs. 33,23,793/- on account of interest on borrowed for acquiring immovable prope…

DCIT, Nederland vs. Sh. Arun Dagar, Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3394/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 56Section 57(3)

Jsl Ltd., Hisar vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4248/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle- 4(1), Jsl Ltd., New Delhi. O.P. Jindal Marg, Vs. Hisar.

For Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92C

…by the A.O.? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.24.91 crores by ignoring the findings of the A.O. which were based on the decision of Tuticorin Alkalis Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC)? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.89,76,682/- by fully allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant of the assessee, without deciding the specific findings of the A.O. that profit of the unit was inflated because of non accounting of inter…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jsl Ltd., Hisar

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

ITA 4111/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle- 4(1), Jsl Ltd., New Delhi. O.P. Jindal Marg, Vs. Hisar.

For Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92C

Urdbanedge Hotels & Holdings P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1536/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R

…l and 3 professional expenses on the ground that AO was not satisfied with matching concept of income and corresponding expenditure by placing reliance in the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals And Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT in 227 ITR 172 (SC). Hence, the AO disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee to the tune of `94,64,729/- as expenditure towards employee benefits and other expenses. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is constructing a…

Braja Kishore Das, Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Sambalpur

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

ITA 110/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Sambhulal Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 145Section 145(3)

…interest income during the year and the assessee has shown the same as business income in place of income from other sources. The Assessing Officer observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd vs CIT, 227 ITR 172 (SC) has held that interest received by Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 201 2 the assessee on fixed deposit should be taxed under the head “ income from other sources” . 14. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that interest of Rs.21,61,961/- should be part of the business income of the assessee as it was incidental to the business of the asses…

ITO, WD-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S City Mall Vikash Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 183/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 57

…ch was Included in total work-in-progress in the Balance Sheet. The AO has brought to tax entire interest income of Rs.l,57,93,739/- as income from other Sources by applying ratio of judgment in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT in 141 CTR 387(SC). The appellant has relied upon the ratio of the two Judgements of Hen'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Bokaro Steer Ltd. 236 TTR 315(SC) and CTT vs.-Kamal Co-operative Suqar Mills Ltd. 243 ITR 2(SC). While deciding the issue on taxability of interest: income on short term bank deposits in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315(SC)(Su…

M/S. North Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd., Balasore vs. DCIT (TDS-II), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 280/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Patra, CA ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 254

…hat the Ld.AO has failed to understand the relevant provision of Electricity Act and the financial statement of the appellant. 8. The case law cited by the Ld. AO of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 is totally out of place and not relevant to our case. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 10. For these and among other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing adequate relief as may be deemed fit be granted in the matter. 12. Brief facts of the case…

Titan Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 156/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ito-10(2)(4) Ltd.102, Titan House, M.P. Room No. 431, Aaykar Vs. Vaidya Marg, Ghatkopar (E) Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400077. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacct0509Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jimit R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Jimit R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 211Section 28Section 43A

…iii) copy of extract of AS-11, the effects of changes in foreign exchange rates, (iv) copy of extract of AS-16, borrowing costs, (v) copy of order in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. 98 ITR 167(SC), (vi) copy of order in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172(SC), (vii) copy of order in Cooper Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITD 165, (viii) copy of order in Maddi Lakshmaiah & Company Ltd. 82 taxmann.com 205, (ix) copy of extract section 209 of Companies Act 1956, (x) copy of extract section 145 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.1 The Ld. counsel further submits that AS-16 is applicable in accounting for borrowing…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ranjan Dagar, Delhi

ITA 3346/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Senior DR

Section 24Section 57(3)

…hat the assessee had made an investment in commercial property ignoring the fact that the unit allotted to the assessee was a house property. (vii) Not applying the ratio of decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd Vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) which is fully applicable in this case.” ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in : (i) Deleting the addition of Rs.33,23,793 /- and restricting the addition at RS.9,326/- without considering the fact that the loan taken by the assessee was for investment in purchase of prope…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ranjan Dagar, New Delhi

ITA 4602/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Senior DR

Section 24Section 57(3)

Smt Shikha Sadhukhan, Howrah vs. ITO, WD-44(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1233/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 1233/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Shikha Sadhukhan...............................…………………………..............Appellant C/O. Smt. Krishna Sadhukhan, 21/1, Sri Aurobindo Road, Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Btups5119Q] Ito, Ward 44(1) ……………………………………………………………………Respondent 3, Govt. Plact (West) Ground Floor Kolkata - 700001 Appearances By: Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 28, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order September 20, 2017 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 19.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Received Compensation From New India Insurance Co. Ltd. As She Lost Her Husband & Two Children In A Car Accident. The Insurance Company Delayed The Payment Of Compensation. The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Hon’Ble High Court & The Hon’Ble High Court Directed The Insurance Company To Pay The Compensation Of Rs. 10,26,500/- Plus Interest @ 9% For The Period

Section 194ASection 2

…apers on record as well as the case law was cited I hold as follows. Section 194A is not a charging section. Nothing can be brought tax by invoking the section. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 172 held as under: “It is also well-settled that interest income is always of a revenue nature unless it is received by way of damages or compensation. It is a compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to have been paid to him. In this way it is par…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6883/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271(1)(c)

…t of the assessee. The addition of interest earned amounting to Rs.6,11,95,775/- was made by the AO treating the same as income from other sources. The AO had relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. , 227 ITR 172, and the assessee relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in NTPC SAIL Power Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT dated 17.07.2012 on the issue of this addition. The assessee has adopted the method of setting off the interest earned on borrowed funds from the interest incurred on such funds. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed that…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gtl Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

…e. So far as, the contention of the Ld. DR, that entry in books of account is not conclusive, reliance can be placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chmicals & Fertilzers Ltd. (2055) 33 M/s GTL Ltd. ITA Nos.5245 & 5419/Mum/2010 227 ITR 172 (Sc) and Kedarnath Jute Mg. Co. Ltd. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) (page-367), where, the Hon'ble Court observed as under:- “Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provisions of law & not on the view which the assessee might take nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of accounts be de…

DCIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Hte Enterprises (P) Ltd., Moradabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2889/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Puneet Sachdev, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 43B

…e relevant material on record, we find that the Accounting Standard simply deals with accounting treatment and cannot lay down the taxation principles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkalies Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) has laid down to this 2 extent. The amount of impairment loss of Rs.4.55 crore has resulted simply because of valuation of the fixed assets done by the assessee. By no standard, such an impairment loss, being the suo motu lower valuation of the fixed assets can be allowed as deduction in the computation of total income. We cannot approve t…

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Add.CIT., Bharuch Range, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2930/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ *chchchch* अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी iznhi dqekj dsfM;k iznhi dqekj dsfM;k iznhi dqekj dsfM;k, लेखा सद"य एवं महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । iznhi dqekj dsfM;k BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER (i). आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2921/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 (ii). आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2930/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 (i) DCIT, (i) Gujarat Narmada बनाम/ Bharuch Range, Valley Fertilizers Co. Vs. Bharuch. Limited. P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Bharuch (ii) Gujarat Narmada Vall…

The Dcitbharuch Circle, Bharuch vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd., Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2921/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 143(3)