Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT

314 ITR 309Supreme Court of India2009#1289 most cited

What is Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT authority for?

The obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 for payments to non-residents arises only when the sum is chargeable to tax in India. If the income is not assessable to tax in India, there is no requirement to deduct tax at source.

88

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v CIT · 314 ITR 309 · SC 2009 · Section 195 · Section 40(a)(i) · Section 9 · TDS on payments to non-residents · sum chargeable to tax in India · income assessable in India · disallowance for non-deduction of TDS · tax at source obligation · non-resident income taxability

Sections most often in play

Section 195Section 250Section 40(a)(i)Section 9
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 195section 40(a)(i)section 9(1)section 40(a)section 19non-residentdouble taxationsection 40section 10companypersonindia

Judgments citing Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Goodricke Group Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 895/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey , Jm &

Section 143(3)Section 40

…India. As per the A.Rs if the tax is not so assessable there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In support thereof, the A.Rs referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others Vs. CIT (314 ITR 309). Section 195 casts an obligation that the tax is to be deducted at source to be paid to 5 M/s. Goodricke Group Ltd., the Revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non-resident if such payments give rise to an income chargeable to tax. Thus the said section according to the A.Rs is to be read in conformity with the charging sections i.e. sectio…

DCIT, Circle-15(2), Kolkata vs. M/S L.G.W. Limited, North 24 Parganas

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1786/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 DCIT, Circle-15(2), V/s. M/s L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, EM Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [PAN No.AAACL 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant DR Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क"…

ITO 33 (3) (4), Mumbai vs. Sudarshan R. Kharbanda, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2160/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-33(3)(4), Shri Sudarshan R. C-12, R. No.604, बनाम/ Kharbanda, Prop. Time Link, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 17/301, Evershine Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Millennium Paradise, Thakur Bandra (East), Village, Kandivali (Eat), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400101 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No.Ahdpk9148D

Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, „जी’,म ुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री जी. मंजूनाथ, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-33(3)(4), Shri Sudarshan R. C-12, R. No.604, बनाम/ Kharbanda, Prop. Time Link, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 17/301, Evershine Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Millennium Paradise, Thakur Bandra (East), Village, Kandivali (Eat), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400101 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No.AHDPK9148…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Goodrick Group Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2088/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40

…India. As per the A.Rs if the tax is not so assessable there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In support thereof, the A.Rs referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others Vs. CIT (314 ITR 309). Section 195 casts an obligation that the tax is to be deducted at source to be paid to the Revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non-resident if such payments give rise to an income chargeable to tax. Thus the said section according to the A.Rs is to be read in conformity with the charging sections i.e. sections 4,5 & 9 as because of the…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Goodrick Group Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2087/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40

…India. As per the A.Rs if the tax is not so assessable there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In support thereof, the A.Rs referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others Vs. CIT (314 ITR 309). Section 195 casts an obligation that the tax is to be deducted at source to be paid to the Revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non-resident if such payments give rise to an income chargeable to tax. Thus the said section according to the A.Rs is to be read in conformity with the charging sections i.e. sections 4,5 & 9 as because of the…

Ciena India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 984/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR)
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…t, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. The payer is bound to deduct TAS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. [See: Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others vs. CIT 314 ITR 309] 9. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is…

Ciena India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 959/DEL/2011[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR)
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…t, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. The payer is bound to deduct TAS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. [See: Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others vs. CIT 314 ITR 309] 9. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Winsome Textiles Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…ceipt, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. The payer is bound to deduct TAS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. (See : Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 309). 9. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Winsome Yarns Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…ceipt, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. The payer is bound to deduct TAS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. (See : Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 309). 9. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Winsome Yarns Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 804/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…ceipt, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. The payer is bound to deduct TAS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. (See : Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 309). 9. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is…

DCIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Winsome Yarns Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1321/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…ceipt, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. The payer is bound to deduct TAS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. (See : Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 309). 9. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is…

Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 560/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.560/CTK/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/s Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bayan Bhawan, Pt.Jawaharlal Bhubaneswar Nehru Marg, Bhubaneswar- 751001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABCP 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. AND आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.02/CTK/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) DCIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar Vs. M/s Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Bayan Bhawan, Pt.Jawaha…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 361/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Acit 19(2) Vs. M/S. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons R.No.L-207, 1301, Prasad Chambers Matru Mandir Mamam Parmanand Marg Mumbai – 400 007 Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk8390F Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…ecision, reference was also made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gen India Mfg. Co. 249 ITR 307 and the subsequent decisions of the apex Court in the case of Arihant Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC), Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. 314 ITR 309 (SC) and Empee Poly Yarn Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 665 to hold that t he assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of cutting and polishing rough diamonds and hence, it was eligible for deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act. Following the above said decisions, the appellant’s claim for additional depreciation u/s. 32(1) (ii) of the Act was allowed.…

ACIT 11(2), Mumbai vs. Kpmg, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4503/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Arijit ChakravorthyFor Respondent: M.V. Raj Guru, AR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…if the tax (sic-income) is assessable in India. (A.Y.99-00, 01-2) If tax (sic-income) is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. [See : Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors. vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 639 : (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 74 : (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) ]. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Sec. 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is…

ACIT 11(2), Mumbai vs. Kpmg, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4479/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Arijit ChakravorthyFor Respondent: M.V. Raj Guru, AR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…if the tax (sic-income) is assessable in India. (A.Y.99-00, 01-2) If tax (sic-income) is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. [See : Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors. vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 639 : (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 74 : (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) ]. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Sec. 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 331/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.315/CTK/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle- Bayan Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nehru Marg, Bhubaneswar-01 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABCP 3276 D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.331/CTK/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) ACIT, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Phosphates Limited 1(2), Bhubaneswar B…

Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 315/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.315/CTK/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle- Bayan Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nehru Marg, Bhubaneswar-01 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABCP 3276 D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. AND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.331/CTK/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) ACIT, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Phosphates Limited 1(2), Bhubaneswar B…

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 872/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…duct.... 3. The aforesaid principles with reference to the Larger Bench decision in Sesa Goa’s (supra) were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98, 102-104 (SC), in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309, 312 (SC), in ITO vs Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79, 87 (SC), also followed by the Hon’ble High Courts in Girnar Industries vs CIT (2010) 230 CTR 401 (Ker), in CIT vs Ramsons Organics Ltd. (2010) 228 CTR 502 (Del), by the learned Tribunal in ACIT vs Leebo Metals Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 275 (Mum) and by the Hon’ble All…

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…duct.... 3. The aforesaid principles with reference to the Larger Bench decision in Sesa Goa’s (supra) were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98, 102-104 (SC), in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309, 312 (SC), in ITO vs Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79, 87 (SC), also followed by the Hon’ble High Courts in Girnar Industries vs CIT (2010) 230 CTR 401 (Ker), in CIT vs Ramsons Organics Ltd. (2010) 228 CTR 502 (Del), by the learned Tribunal in ACIT vs Leebo Metals Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 275 (Mum) and by the Hon’ble All…

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1002/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

…duct.... 3. The aforesaid principles with reference to the Larger Bench decision in Sesa Goa’s (supra) were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cine Agencies vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98, 102-104 (SC), in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309, 312 (SC), in ITO vs Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 79, 87 (SC), also followed by the Hon’ble High Courts in Girnar Industries vs CIT (2010) 230 CTR 401 (Ker), in CIT vs Ramsons Organics Ltd. (2010) 228 CTR 502 (Del), by the learned Tribunal in ACIT vs Leebo Metals Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 275 (Mum) and by the Hon’ble All…