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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1234 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…Rs, (1981) 129 ITR 115. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is more detailed. She had examined various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom). Some factual aspects have also been discussed and mentioned by her. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the earnings and the quantum thereof. Reference was made to the contentions and arguments raised by…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1238 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…Rs, (1981) 129 ITR 115. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is more detailed. She had examined various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom). Some factual aspects have also been discussed and mentioned by her. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the earnings and the quantum thereof. Reference was made to the contentions and arguments raised by…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1228 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…Rs, (1981) 129 ITR 115. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is more detailed. She had examined various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom). Some factual aspects have also been discussed and mentioned by her. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the earnings and the quantum thereof. Reference was made to the contentions and arguments raised by…

The Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1235 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…Rs, (1981) 129 ITR 115. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is more detailed. She had examined various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom). Some factual aspects have also been discussed and mentioned by her. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the earnings and the quantum thereof. Reference was made to the contentions and arguments raised by…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S K.Venkateswara Rao

ITTA/188/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/113/2011HC Telangana20 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaypee Dsc Ventures Ltd

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed

ITA/357/2010HC Delhi11 Mar 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…, any income earned on such deposit is incidental to the acquisition of assets for the setting up of the plant and machinery. In this view of the matter the ratio laid down by this court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172, will not be attracted. The more appropriate decision in the factual situation in the present case is in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC).” 16. In Bongaigaon Refinary And Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 251 ITR 329 (SC), the question that arose for consideration was whether the tribunal was justi…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-XIII vs. M/s. Mereena Creations

The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA-650/2006HC Delhi30 Oct 2009
Section 143(2)Section 80H

…Reportable * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 650 of 2006 % Reserved on : October 05, 2009 Pronounced on : October 30, 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - XIII . . . Appellant through : Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal with Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocates VERSUS M/s. Mereena Creations . . . Respondent through : Mr. Pankaj Jain with Mr. R.K. Chauhan, Advocates CORAM :- THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgm…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Insilco Ltd

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA/873/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The „Cit(A)‟] Allowing Deduction On Account Of Provision Made By

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…e assets in the absence 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) 227 ITR 172 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 tak…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, New Delhi vs. Insilco Limited

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA-1156/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…e assets in the absence 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) 227 ITR 172 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 tak…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, New Delhi vs. Insilco Limited

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA-873/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…e assets in the absence 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) 227 ITR 172 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 tak…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Insilco Limited

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 1156 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…e assets in the absence 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) 227 ITR 172 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 tak…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Insilco Ltd

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 873 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…e assets in the absence 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) 227 ITR 172 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 tak…

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result we answer the question as framed in favour of the assessee

ITA/1156/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad
Section 260A

…ITA 1156&1157/2007 Page 1 of 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1156/2007 & 1157/2007 % Judgment delivered on : 26.02.2009 INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LIMITED, NEW DELHI ….. Appellant Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ….. Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sunil Magon, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad Gupta, Advocate CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER…

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result we answer the question as framed in favour of the assessee

ITA/1157/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad
Section 260A

…ITA 1156&1157/2007 Page 1 of 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1156/2007 & 1157/2007 % Judgment delivered on : 26.02.2009 INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LIMITED, NEW DELHI ….. Appellant Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ….. Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sunil Magon, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad Gupta, Advocate CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER…

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result we answer the question as framed in favour of the assessee

ITA-1156/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009
For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad
Section 260A

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1156/2007 & 1157/2007 % Judgment delivered on : 26.02.2009 INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LIMITED, NEW DELHI ….. Appellant Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ….. Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sunil Magon, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad Gupta, Advocate CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether the Reporters of local pa…

Indian Oil Panipal Power Consortium Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result we answer the question as framed in favour of the assessee

ITA-1157/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009
For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad
Section 260A

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1156/2007 & 1157/2007 % Judgment delivered on : 26.02.2009 INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LIMITED, NEW DELHI ….. Appellant Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ….. Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sunil Magon, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad Gupta, Advocate CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether the Reporters of local pa…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat Guardian Limited

In the result, no fault can

ITA/669/2008HC Delhi23 Jan 2009

Bench: The Tribunal The Revenue As Well As The Assessee, Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of 2009:Dhc:240-Db

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Jha
Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…m of deduction. The said principle enunciated by the Supreme Court was not contemplated to apply to situations where the Act makes a distinct and specific provision. See Observations made by the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals v. CIT; (1997) 227 ITR 172 at pages 183-184. In the result, no fault can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in respect of this issue. 18. The Tribunal has returned pure findings of fact which are not perverse. As discussed above none of the issues raise a substantial question of law. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The parties to bear their own…

C.I.T vs. Pench Power Ltd

In the result the appeals are dismissed

ITA - 275 / 2008HC Delhi15 Jan 2009
Section 57

…![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) 13-15 \* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 854/2006 **CIT** .... Appellant Through: Mr. R.D. Jolly, Adv. versus PENCH POWER LTD. .... Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kr. Batra, Adv. WITH ITA 257/2008 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.D. Jolly, Adv. versus PENCH POWER LTD. .... Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kr. Batra, Adv. WITH ITA 275/2008/ CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.D. Jolly, Adv. versus PENCH POWER LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kr. Batra, Adv. Date of Decision: 15th January, 2009 ![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) ![](_page…

C.I.T vs. Pench Power Ltd

In the result the appeals are dismissed

ITA - 257 / 2008HC Delhi15 Jan 2009
Section 57

…Hence, any income earned on such deposit is incidental to the acquisition of assets for the setting up of the plant and machinery. In this view of the matter the ratio laid down by this Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. -vs- CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172 will not be attracted. The more appropriate decision in the factual situation in the present case is in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315(SC). The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. As regards the assessee's alternative plea that even if interest income is treated as income from other sources, the interest paid on…