Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 195, Section 250, Section 40(a)(i), Section 9.

Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT?

88 judgments on BharatTax cite Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT (314 ITR 309), spanning 2011 to 2026.

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.

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 195 Section 250 Section 40(a)(i)Section 9

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 195 section 40(a)(i)section 9(1)section 40(a)section 19 non-resident double taxation section 40 section 10 company person india

Judgments citing Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT

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 1001/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…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…sable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted.—Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489 : (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors. vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 639 : (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 74 : (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. (Paras 7 & 8) 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 expr…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

ITA 289/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 92

…ircular No. 17 (XXXVII-1) of 1953, No.26 (26)-IT/53 dated 17.07.1953, CBDT has clarified that if transaction is on principal to principal basis no tax liability will be arise in the foreign companies. 6. In case of Vijay Ship Breaking Co. Vs. CIT (Ahmedabad) 314 ITR 309 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that provision of Sec. 195 is not applicable in case where income is not chargeable to tax in India (Also see Veneburg Group B. V. 289 ITR 466 AAR New Delhi). I 7. In a recent judgment, in case of Van Oord ACZ (India) Vs. CIT (Delhi) dtd.24.03.2010, Hon'ble High Court has stated that the obligation to deduct ta…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Goodricke Group Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 971/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 971/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Goodricke Group Ltd., Kolkata [Pan: Aabcg1614Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yadav, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Rajendram, FCA

Section 143(3)

…dia. As per the ld AR, if the tax is not so assessable there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In support thereof, the ld AR referred to the decision 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 payment give rise to an income chargeable to tax. Thus, the said section according to the ld AR is to be read in conformity with the charging sections i.e Sections 4, 5 and 9 as because of t…

ITO (It), Kolkata vs. M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2249/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2249/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O. (International Taxation), -Vs.- M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 4975 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…239 ITR 587 / 105 Taxman 742 . However, the Karnataka High Court not followed the subsequent binding judgment of 14 15 M/s. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 77/[2009] 314 ITR 309 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that, the resident is not required to deduct TDS under section 195(1) of the Act, if the income of non- resident recipient is not taxable in India. Given this binding precedent, the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra) would not apply to the cases where…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeals of the Revenue for both the relevant assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2226/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: 12.04.2017

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 250(6)Section 73Section 80I

…roduction and manufacture. In India Cine Agencies vs. CIT (308 ITR 98), the Supreme Court held that ship breaking activity gave rise to production of a distinct and different article. It was similarly held in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others vs CIT (314 ITR 309) that conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flaps and rolls in desired sizes amounts to manufacture or production of an article or thing. Similarly, in ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd {320 ITR 79), the Supreme Court held that conversion of marble bloc s into polished slabs and tiles amounted to manufacture or produ…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeals of the Revenue for both the relevant assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2225/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: 12.04.2017

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 250(6)Section 73Section 80I

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Elve Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 3565/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…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 v. CIT 314 ITR 309] 14. 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…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Elve Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 3564/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

ITO, Tuticorin vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, Tuticorin

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 1043/CHNY/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Renga rajan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 143Section 147Section 154Section 195Section 2Section 201

…e Apex Court. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 8. orders of the authorities below. It is true that judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation (supra) stood reversed by Hon’ble Apex Court in 314 ITR 309. Interpretation of law by Hon’ble Apex Court relates back to the date of enactment of the related provision itself and there can be no quarrel on the point that a rectification can be done for giving effect to a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court. The basis on which assessee sought rectification is a letter dated 31.08.2009 which reads as under:-…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Ulhas Gopal Karle, Thane

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2033/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Income Tax Officer-3(4) Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park 204, Kalika Tower Road No. 16Z, Wagle Vs. Opp. Pratap Cinema Industrial Estate Kolbad Road Thane (W) 400604 Thane (W) 400601 Pan – Afypk0221L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Tikekar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member Income Tax Officer-3(4) Shri Ulhas Gopal Karle 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park 204, Kalika Tower Road No. 16Z, Wagle Vs. Opp. Pratap Cinema Industrial Estate Kolbad Road Thane (W) 400604 Thane (W) 400601 PAN – AFYPK0221L Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Saurabh Deshpande Respondent by: Shri Deepak Tikekar Date of Hearing: 29.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 01.12.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5097/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

…assessable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted—Transmission Corporation of A. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors. vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 639: (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 74: (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. 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 char…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5096/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5094/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S K P Sanghvi & Sons, Income Tax -16(3), Matru 1301, Prasad Chambers, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Operahouse,Mumbai-4 Mumbai-400007 Pan:Aaafk8390F .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Sri R P Meena Respondent By .. Sri K Shivram Date Of Hearing .. 29-09-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 29 -09- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-27/Ac-16(3)/135/13-14 Dated 22.4.2014. Assessment Was Framed By The Acit- Circle 16(3), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide His Order Dated 28.3.2013 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

Section 143(3)

…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.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Xansa India Ltd., Noida

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2283/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ankur Garg, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 40Section 40a

…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]" 11.73 Therefore, in my view, since the payment to Xansa-UK is only a reimbursement of subsistence allowance paid to the employees of the appellant, and is not chargeable to tax in India, no tax was required to be DCIT V Xansa India Limited ITA No. 2283/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2004-05), ITA No. 3671/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2005-06), ITA No…

I.T.O WD - 12(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Jai Vikshu Niketan Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1133/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted.—Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489 : (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors. vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 639 : (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 74 : (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. 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 char…

Gates India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 813/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. L. Chandok, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajsh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 195Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…, 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 10 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”…

M/S Balmer Lawries & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer(It) WD-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2079/KOL/2014[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)

….2079/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Blmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. ITO(IT) Wd-1(1), Kol. Page 16 4.3. In support of the aforesaid settled position in law, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309, 313 (SC), which decision was followed and reiterated in GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456, 463-465 (SC). In Vijay Ship Breaking’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held and observed at page 313 of the Reports that liability to deduct TDS arises ‘only if the tax is assessable in India’. Since tax was not assessa…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cauvery Stone Impex Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2098/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2098/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. B. Lakshminarayanan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Philip George, Advocate

Section 10BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…igh Courts decisions as under:- ‘’(i) Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd ( 320 ITR 79) (SC) (ii) Ambika Recycling (2014) (45 Taxmann.com 386) (Guj) (iii) Budharaha and Co. (204 ITR 412) (SC) (iv) SesaGoa Ltd. (271 ITR 331) (SC) (v) Vijay Shipping Corporation (314 ITR 309) (SC) (vi) Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd (210 Taxman 257) (vii) Gem Granities (141 Taxman 528) (vii) John Brown Technologies India P. Ltd (257CTR370) Kar’’ The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the facts, observations of the Assessing Officer and relevant materials, is of the opinion that prime facie granite block does not have value…