w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Zuari Industries Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- T T G INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209TN1987PLC014169

Company & Directors' Information:- V I P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L25200MH1968PLC013914

Company & Directors' Information:- A L M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14100DL1996PLC129067

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17121MH1991PLC257750

Company & Directors' Information:- S R INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L29246PB1989PLC009531

Company & Directors' Information:- F E INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36100PB2003PTC026482

Company & Directors' Information:- N K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L91110GJ1987PLC009905

Company & Directors' Information:- T S I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101HR1997PTC034478

Company & Directors' Information:- B L A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U10200MH1964PTC162314

Company & Directors' Information:- H G I INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40200WB1944PLC011754

Company & Directors' Information:- R P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100GJ2011PTC075812

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1974PLC007169

Company & Directors' Information:- A G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27300HR1991PTC031378

Company & Directors' Information:- H. J. INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120GJ2010PTC060769

Company & Directors' Information:- G R S INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000PB2005PLC029159

Company & Directors' Information:- T S L INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65999WB1994PLC065255

Company & Directors' Information:- M F B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31401TN1989PLC018274

Company & Directors' Information:- V S P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ2005PTC011820

Company & Directors' Information:- M N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100TG2012PTC079737

Company & Directors' Information:- G I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312PB2010PTC033806

Company & Directors' Information:- E T C INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31200MP1995PLC009281

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045572

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V E INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ2006PLC012577

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21010MH1992PLC068885

Company & Directors' Information:- N G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1994PLC065937

Company & Directors' Information:- S L INDUSTRIES P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U15331WB1989PTC047543

Company & Directors' Information:- T R A T INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199KL1996PLC010148

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC067120

Company & Directors' Information:- N M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175664

Company & Directors' Information:- S N L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17115RJ1994PTC008053

Company & Directors' Information:- J V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057081

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27101HR1995PTC032569

Company & Directors' Information:- D V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049221

Company & Directors' Information:- C D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1996PLC101277

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2014PTC096387

Company & Directors' Information:- G S M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02001DL2002PTC117443

Company & Directors' Information:- B G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U26921ML1980PLC001830

Company & Directors' Information:- P K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900DL2012PTC241654

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U91110GJ1994PTC022025

Company & Directors' Information:- L C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122UP2013PTC055697

Company & Directors' Information:- G. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15435MH2005PTC151817

Company & Directors' Information:- INCOME INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02411MP1989PTC005351

Company & Directors' Information:- P A S INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active in Progress] CIN = U17121TZ2005PTC012171

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039251

Company & Directors' Information:- M K J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19111UP1989PTC010468

Company & Directors' Information:- P B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MP1994PTC008840

Company & Directors' Information:- R & M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24297TN1972PTC006185

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U21012WB1977PLC030854

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17117DL1995PTC064137

Company & Directors' Information:- M C INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U27106WB1993PLC058995

Company & Directors' Information:- D R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100WB2011PTC160058

Company & Directors' Information:- R. L. F. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1983PLC015262

Company & Directors' Information:- U K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24241WB1988PTC044355

Company & Directors' Information:- M G I INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27310GJ2006PTC048707

Company & Directors' Information:- A D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC131561

Company & Directors' Information:- V J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253KA2009PTC050226

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PLC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PTC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- G R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB1996PTC018671

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15549WB2008PTC130116

Company & Directors' Information:- R S V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399MH2008PTC180489

Company & Directors' Information:- K. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14220JH2008PTC013409

Company & Directors' Information:- D K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202CH1994PLC014627

Company & Directors' Information:- D G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U36942WB1946PTC013526

Company & Directors' Information:- R I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1993PTC052678

Company & Directors' Information:- I S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29100GJ2009PTC057308

Company & Directors' Information:- B M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17000MH1997PTC109621

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ1995PTC006398

Company & Directors' Information:- B N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120AS1994PTC004273

Company & Directors' Information:- A J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2004PTC145040

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01549TZ1997PTC007927

Company & Directors' Information:- C R I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29120TZ2002PTC010129

Company & Directors' Information:- A C T INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018724

Company & Directors' Information:- G B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29220PN2011PTC139883

Company & Directors' Information:- S D B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MP1996PLC010394

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31300CT2008PTC020916

Company & Directors' Information:- A C INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29299WB2006PTC109474

Company & Directors' Information:- K M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC043295

Company & Directors' Information:- C J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25209MH1998PTC116707

Company & Directors' Information:- N P INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15549PB1989PLC009426

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29141MP2008PTC020731

Company & Directors' Information:- I K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100MH2010PTC199474

Company & Directors' Information:- H. D. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310MH2011PTC216080

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. G. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26960DL2008PTC182480

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28999DL2008PTC177248

Company & Directors' Information:- H & H INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34100DL2010PTC204604

Company & Directors' Information:- M J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15203KA2011PTC060675

Company & Directors' Information:- B R V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301UP1995PTC018704

Company & Directors' Information:- A. G. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25201UP1994PLC017291

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15204AS1993PLC003930

Company & Directors' Information:- I P M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25200DL1995PLC068554

Company & Directors' Information:- M R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900UP2008PTC036443

Company & Directors' Information:- R D I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1995PTC065508

Company & Directors' Information:- J G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L15141WB1983PLC035931

Company & Directors' Information:- V G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15139JK2015PTC004570

Company & Directors' Information:- S N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29211UP1951PTC002319

Company & Directors' Information:- K G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29130WB1951PTC019868

Company & Directors' Information:- N S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74120UP2012PTC053986

Company & Directors' Information:- W W I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29300MH1997PTC112589

Company & Directors' Information:- D U INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29230GJ2016PTC091588

Company & Directors' Information:- S R P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U00061BR1984PLC002023

Company & Directors' Information:- C P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29303MP1949PTC000846

Company & Directors' Information:- J B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2013PTC245506

Company & Directors' Information:- S J V INDUSTRIES LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U15421WB1982PLC035521

Company & Directors' Information:- V V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1980PTC010427

Company & Directors' Information:- K K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65100DL1982PTC013046

Company & Directors' Information:- A T C INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109AS1984PLC002201

Company & Directors' Information:- N V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1953PTC020952

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31908AS1987PTC002804

Company & Directors' Information:- L K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291MH2012PTC233546

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U92114DL1956PTC002616

Company & Directors' Information:- G G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320UP1969PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- K S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31909MH1960PTC011707

Company & Directors' Information:- P R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U21014DL1971PTC005738

Company & Directors' Information:- R K I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29190DL2012PTC233413

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25202AS1988PTC003132

Company & Directors' Information:- S G R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25199WB1948PTC016397

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190KA2012PTC062367

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19115UP2012PTC051151

Company & Directors' Information:- E S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN2012PTC086119

Company & Directors' Information:- I B INDUSTRIES LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28992WB1990PLC050469

Company & Directors' Information:- V I INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36934WB1951PLC019890

Company & Directors' Information:- J M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05002UP1952PTC002456

Company & Directors' Information:- L F INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291UP2015PTC068602

Company & Directors' Information:- A K S INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27201WB1946PTC013433

Company & Directors' Information:- V M V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26990GJ2013PTC076945

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U29248PN1948PLC001948

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20232AS1980PTC001853

Company & Directors' Information:- V N R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21090AP2012PTC081525

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011764

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- G I P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52605MH2015PTC263962

Company & Directors' Information:- C. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109RJ2014PTC045306

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2014PTC254820

Company & Directors' Information:- S. B. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PN2012PTC144181

Company & Directors' Information:- A & P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36935TG2014PTC095781

Company & Directors' Information:- C & N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40200TG2014PTC095187

Company & Directors' Information:- B S B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2013PTC088059

Company & Directors' Information:- R A R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2016PTC103684

Company & Directors' Information:- K S A B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2012PTC181903

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36100JK2013PTC003808

Company & Directors' Information:- R D M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100DL2013PTC252294

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100KA2012PTC066761

Company & Directors' Information:- S V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27104WB1960PTC024715

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

Company & Directors' Information:- T & M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1956PLC002904

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51109BR1946PTC000228

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1946PTC005438

    Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2008

    Decided On, 02 January 2020

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Goa

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SONAK & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. BHADANG

    For the Appellant: Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel. For the Respondent: Madhur Agarwal, P. Arolkar, Advocates.



Judgment Text


C.V. Bhadang, J.

1. On 23rd June 2008, this Appeal was Admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that interest of Rs.1,97,91,197/- paid on borrowings, capitalized in the books of account for setting up of Argon Gas Plant as a revenue expenditure, even before putting the said plant into operation?

(II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the amount of Rs.7,09,10,000/- paid to Texmaco, as deferred revenue expenditure allowing the payment to be amortised for a period of 8 years?

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Appeal may be stated thus:

The respondent/assessee is a Company engaged in manufacture of fertilizers and cement. The respondent filed its return for the Assessment year 1995-96 on 2nd November 1995, which was revised on 27th March 1997, declaring income of Rs.68,02,32,080/-. It appears that the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act (Act for short) were issued calling for various details, which were supplied by the respondent. The Assessing Officer (AO) by an order dated 24.03.1998 completed the assessment in the following terms:

(i) The expenditure of Rs.2,01,000/- on foreign travel of the wives of the Directors of the Company was disallowed.

(ii) Insofar as interest of Rs.1,97,91,197/- on the loan for capital borrowed for setting up of Argon Gas Plant is concerned, the assessee claimed the interest paid on such borrowing as a revenue expenditure. The AO did not agree with the claim and held that such interest on borrowed capital is part of the actual cost as defined in Section 43(1) Explanation 8 of the Act.

(iii) Insofar as payment of Rs.7,09,10,000/- to Texmaco for the purposes of having continuous supply of limestone as a raw material, the assessee claimed it as a revenue expenditure. Here again, the AO did not agree with the claim as made and added back the said amount as capital expenditure.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an Appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) by an order dated 14th January 2003, confirmed the order of the AO on the issue of payment made to Texmaco as capital expenditure. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the expenditure incurred on the foreign travel as business expense and the interest on borrowings for setting up of Argon Gas Plant as revenue expenditure. The assessee carried the matter in Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), insofar as the treatment of the payment made to Texmaco in Appeal No. 27/PNJ/2003 is concerned. The Revenue challenged the order in Appeal No. 38/PNJ/2003 against the issue of expenditure on foreign travel and interest on borrowings.

4. The ITAT by an order dated 25th September 2007, allowed the assessee's Appeal holding the payment made to Texmaco as deferred revenue expenditure thereby permitting the assessee to amortise the amount for a period of eight years. As regards the Revenue's Appeal, the ITAT relying on its earlier decision, directed the AO to delete the disallowance. As regards the issue of interest on borrowings, the ITAT upheld the order of CIT (Appeals). Feeling aggrieved the Revenue is in Appeal.

5. As the substantial questions of law framed would show that, we are only concerned about the issue of the treatment of interest on borrowings for setting of the Argon Gas Plant and the payment made to Texmaco.

6. Insofar as the first question about the interest on borrowing for setting up of the Argon Gas Plant is concerned, it may not detain us for long, as the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. 6[2008] 167 Taxman 206 (SC). In that case, the assessee Company was engaged in the business and sale of intravenous solutions. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had installed new machinery and claimed deduction of interest on the borrowings. The AO disallowed the amount on the ground that, during the year assessee had installed the new machinery, production was not started. That order was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). The ITAT held that the amount could not be added as income, which order was ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court following substantial question of law arose for determination:

Whether interest paid in respect of borrowings on capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year can be permitted as allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961 ?

7. On behalf of the Revenue, reliance was placed on Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) of the Act, in order to claim that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction for interest on the borrowings, particularly when the machines were not put to use during the assessment year under consideration. It was contended that the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) were required to be harmoniously construed with Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) of the Act regarding actual cost. According to the Revenue, the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) being general in nature had to give way to the special provisions contained in Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) of the Act.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interest on money borrowed for the purposes of business, is a necessary item of expenditure. For allowing such deduction, three conditions are required to be satisfied, namely, (i) the money i.e. capital must have been borrowed by the assessee (ii) it must have been borrowed for the purposes of the business and (iii) the assessee must have paid interest on the borrowed amount. It was inter alia held that what is germane is whether the borrowing was for the purpose of the business. It has been held that the legislature has made no distinction in Section 36(1)(iii) between capital borrowed for a revenue purpose and capital borrowed for capital purpose. What Section 36(1) (iii) emphasizes is user of the capital and not the asset which comes into existence as a result of the borrowed capital. It has been held that the Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) as well as the concept of actual cost has no application to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.

It can thus be seen that once it is shown that the borrowing was for business purpose, the interest paid on such borrowing would be an allowable deduction. Thus, no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the ITAT on the issue of interest on borrowings. The substantial question of law framed at (I) is answered against the appellant and in favour of the assessee.

9. This takes us to the second substantial question of law as framed.

In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to note few more facts. A Company styled as “Texmaco” was having a cement Plant at Yerraguntala (Andhra Pradesh). The cement Plant although, a sick industrial unit was in working condition and a going concern. Texmaco had acquired mining rights from Government of Andhra Pradesh on 14th May 1982 for a period of 20 years for mining of lime stones as raw material over an area of 1,000 sq. kms. of land. Since the cement Plant had become sick, it was being operated by the respondent under a working arrangement and the respondent was carrying on cement business effectively from 1st January 1994. The Plant was ultimately transferred to the respondent on 7th February 1995 for a consideration, which includes the consideration of Rs.709.11 lakhs for purchase of the mining rights in order to ensure supply of raw material for its cement division. Accordingly a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the parties on 28th October 1994. At the time the said rights were obtained by the respondent, eight years of the mining lease was remaining. The respondent claimed before the AO that the the payment having been made for procurement of raw material for its cement manufacturing business was allowable as revenue expenditure. The respondent therefore amortised the amount over eight years in its books of account. The AO refused to accept the claim on the ground that the amount was spent for obtaining an advantage of enduring nature and was thus a capital expenditure. The CIT (Appeals) has concurred with the finding of the AO. It was held that the respondent has spent the amount towards purchase of an enduring source being the right of winning and taking away the limestone deposits. It was held that payment was made to buy “long lasting source of raw material, which would yield such material for years to come”. It was further held that there is a clear difference between the price paid to buy raw material and the price paid towards buying long lasting source of material and the former can be held as a revenue expenditure, while the later has to be held as a capital expenditure.

10. The CIT (Appeals) placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1972] 86 ITR 647 (SC), which was found to be squarely applicable to the facts of the case. In fact, the CIT (Appeals) found “startling similarities” between the facts in the present case and the one obtaining in the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand.

11. The ITAT on the contrary found that the limestone quarries were not acquired by the respondent through the transaction with Texmaco. It was found that the quarries continued to be owned by the Andhra Pradesh Government. The rights acquired by the respondent are only in substitution of the rights of Texmaco for extracting limestone from the quarries. The ITAT found that “in that way the amount paid by the assessee company was in the reserve of materials necessary for running its business”. The ITAT has noted the submissions made on behalf of the assessee in the case of Pingle Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1960] 40 ITR 67 (SC). This is what is held by the ITAT in para 11 of its order:

11. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the records carefully. The assessee company had paid a sum of Rs.7,09,10,000/- to M/s Texmaco in acquiring the right to extract limestone from the mines taken on lease by M/s Texmaco from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. As rightly argued by the assessee, the limestone quarries were not acquired by the assessee through the deal. The limestone quarry is still owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The right acquired by the assessee company is to substitute M/s Texmaco and assume their right for the purpose of extracting limestone from the quarries. In that way amount paid by the assessee company was in the reserve of materials necessary for running its business. In this context, the proposition made by late N.A. Palkiwala while arguing in Pingle's case are very much relevant. That where an assessee made an outright purchase of mines and quarries had partook the character of capital expenditure as what is acquired by the assessee is an asset. In a case where ownership is not acquired but only interest in land is acquired, the nature of the expenditure depends upon the fact that for which purpose the right was acquired or the right is acquired. In a case where not even an interest in land is acquired but only an arrangement is made for the supply of raw materials, the expenditure will be in the nature of revenue expenditure. Therefore, as the facts speak for themselves, in the present case there is no reason to hold the amount of Rs.7,09,10,000/- is not capital expenditure in nature.

12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused record.

13. It is submitted by Ms. Razaq, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent has acquired mining rights held by Texmaco for ensuring uninterrupted supply of raw material which is a benefit of an enduring nature. It is submitted that over and above the consideration paid for acquiring the lease hold rights, the respondent was also paying the royalty to the government of Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted that the case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the ITAT on the decision in the case of Pingle Industries Ltd. is misplaced. It is submitted that the only reasoning articulated by the ITAT while upsetting the concurrent finding of the AO and the CIT (Appeals) is as contained in para 11 of the order, which is cryptic. It is submitted that except observing that the “facts speak for themselves,” there are no material reasons recorded by the ITAT, while disagreeing with the finding recorded by the AO and the CIT (Appeals). On behalf of the appellant, reliance is placed on the following decisions.

i. Gotan Lime Syndicate Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC).

ii. Pingle Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1960] 40 ITR 67 (SC).

iii. Aditya Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 106 Taxman 337 (SC).

iv. R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1972] 86 ITR 647 (SC).

v. Union of India & Others Vs. M/s Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Another (1989) 3 SCC 181.

14. Mr. Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has only purchased rights to mine the mineral, namely, the limestone and there is no purchase or transfer of leasehold rights. It is submitted that even assuming that it was a benefit of an enduring nature, it was essentially an expenditure on revenue account for obtaining raw material. It is submitted that the substance of the transaction has to be looked into while determining whether the expenditure is on revenue or capital account. It is submitted that looked from commercial view, it was essentially to acquire raw material and thus, has rightly been held to be on a revenue account. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the AO and the CIT (Appeals) on the decision in the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand is misplaced. On behalf of the respondent, reliance is placed on the following decisions:

i. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-I Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257.

ii. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1993] 69 Taxman 160 (Bombay).

iii. Pingle Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad [1960] 40 ITR 67

iv. Commissioner of income Tax Vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468

15. We have considered the rival submissions made. The material facts are not in dispute. It is undisputed that Texmaco, which was a concern in the manufacture of cement was holding a lease from Andhra Pradesh Government for mining of limestone from vast tract of land. Texmaco had become a sick unit and a reference was pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and a scheme was sanctioned under Section 18(4) of the said Act on 06.08.1993 for its rehabilitation. However, the same could not be implemented. On Texmaco's suggestion, a revised proposal for its rehabilitation by transfer of the cement Plant to the respondent, which is a group company of Texmaco, was mooted. As an interim arrangement, prior to proposed transfer of the Cement Division under an agreement dated 5th January 1994 between Texmaco and the respondent, it was inter alia agreed that the respondent shall run and operate the Cement Plant at Yeraguntala, Andhra Pradesh for a period of three years from 1st January 1994 and thus, it was the respondent which was operating the cement Plant under the interim arrangement. The parties have accordingly entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 28th October 1994. The Plant was ultimately transferred to the respondent on 7th February 1995. The consideration for the transfer of the cement division includes Rs.709.11 lakhs for takeover of lease, which Texmaco had with the Andhra Pradesh Government, which the respondent claimed to be incurred on revenue account.

16. The AO has considered the issue in details and has held that the amount was spent for acquiring a benefit of enduring nature and was thus on capital account. The CIT (Appeals) has concurred with the finding of the AO. While doing so, the AO and CIT (Appeals) have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand. As noticed earlier, the only reasoning articulated by the ITAT to differ is to be found in para 11 of the order. A bare perusal of the same would show that the ITAT has not even adverted to the decision in the case R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand. The ITAT has referred to the “propositions made by Mr. Palkhiwala, while arguing the case of Pingle Industries Ltd.”, which the ITAT has found to be relevant. The ITAT has then found that the quarries were not acquired by the respondent and same continued to be owned by the Andhra Pradesh Government. Lastly, the ITAT has found that the payment was made by the assessee to “substitute” itself in the place of Texmaco and to assume their rights for the purpose of extracting limestone from the quarries. The ITAT has found that no interest having been acquired or created in the land and only an arrangement being made for the supply of raw material, the expenditure will be in the nature of revenue expenditure.

17. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to refer to the decision in the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand and Pingle Industries Ltd. in some details. In R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand, the assessee was granted a lease of certain areas for mining of Mica for twenty years. The mines were earlier worked out by other companies for a period of fifteen years. The question was whether the expenditure for acquiring the leasehold rights were on revenue or a capital account. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the lease was a long term lease and it conferred right to excavate mica, that is to remove it, grade it and pay royalty to the government in accordance with the quality of mica extracted and thus, was a revenue expenditure. On behalf of the assessee it was contended that the expenditure was for getting a specific quantity of mica in the mines which was assessee's stock in trade. On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended that the amount of lease was a capital expenditure in as much as the pillars of mica (before it is mined) cannot be said to be stock in trade. Accepting the claim made on behalf of the Revenue, the expenditure was held to be capital expenditure.

18. We find that the facts obtaining in the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand have a close resemblance, with the facts herein, as rightly found by the CIT (Appeals) and the said decision would be applicable on all fours to the present case.

19. Coming to the case of Pingle Industries Ltd., it is significant to note that the said case has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand. Incidentally, Pingle Industries Ltd. was also a case of mining where the assessee had obtained a lease for excavating shahabadi stones for a period of twelve years for which an annual payment was agreed upon. The Court after taking a survey of several Indian and English cases for determining what is a capital expenditure and what is a revenue expenditure by a majority judgment held that the assessee by its long term lease, had acquired leasehold rights to win stones and that the stones “in situ” were not its stock in trade in a business sense, but a capital asset from which after extraction it converted the stones into its stock in trade. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted its earlier decision in the case of Abdul Kayoom Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1962] 44 ITR 689, in which it has been held that what is decisive is (i) the nature of the business (ii) the nature of the expenditure (iii) the nature of the right acquired and (iv) their relation interse and this is the only key to resolve the issue in the light of the general principles governing such cases.

It can thus be seen that the nature of the right acquired may be one of the criteria, however, it alone is not decisive. We find that what has weighed with ITAT is predominantly the nature of the right. Even here, we are unable to agree with the proposition that there is no creation of any right or interest in the land. This is because by transfer of rights of Texmaco, the respondent is authorized to mine and to win the mineral from the mines, remove it and use it as a raw material in its cement Plant.

20. Coming back to the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand this is what is held:

The determining factor will depend largely on the nature of the trade in which the asset is employed. The several cases which do not deal with the mining leases but are concerned with different assets are of little help in the same way as in Mohanlal Hargovind Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1949] 17 ITR 473 (PC) cases relating to the purchase or leasing of mining quarries, deposits of brick earth were considered not to be of assistance by the Privy Council in case of a contract for collecting and removing tendu leaves. The principles enunciated for determining the nature of the expenditure have, been sought to be applied to different situations arising on the facts of each case, but the difficulty in matching them with the seeming irreconcilability are perhaps explicable only on the ground that the determination in any particular case is dependent on the character of the lease or agreement, the nature of the asset, the purpose for which the expenditure was incurred and such other factors as in the facts and circumstances of that case would indicate. If we confine our attention to the mining leases, what appears to us to be an empirical test is that where minerals have to be won, extracted and brought to surface by mining operations, the expenditure incurred for acquiring such a right would be of a capital nature. But where the mineral has already been gotten and is on the surface, then the expenditure incurred for obtaining the right to acquire the raw material, that is, the mineral, would be a revenue expenditure laid out for the acquisition of stock-in-trade.

(Emphasis supplied)

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further went on to hold as under:

An expenditure incurred for acquiring a right to take away sand from the surface of river beds has been treated as if the sand was stock-in-trade-M.A. Jabbar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1968] 68 ITR 493, in the same way as tendu leaves have been treated by the Privy Council in Mohanlal Hargovind's case. In the former case, Bhargava, J. indicated a number of factors which led to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in obtaining the lease was revenue expenditure for the purpose of obtaining stock-in-trade and not capital expenditure which were:

(1) that the lease was for a very short period of 11 months only;

(2) that the sole right which was acquired by the assessee under the lease deed was to take away the sand lying on the surface of the leased land where no question of raising, digging or excavating for the sand before obtaining it was involved. In other words, no operation had to be performed on the land itself and “is not a case where the gravel is in any true sense” as pointed out in Golden Horse Shoe (New) Ltd.'s case “was won from the soil .... it is merely shovelled up where it lies”.

Thus insofar as a case of mining lease is concerned, the empirical test as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that where the mineral has already been gotten and is lying on the surface (unlike in the present case), it would be a revenue expenditure. However, where the mineral has to be removed, brought to the surface and then used, it cannot be regarded as a stock in trade and thus the expenditure made will be an expenditure on a capital account.

22. In the case of Pingle Industries Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted the submission made on behalf of the assessee that all cases of mines and quarries fall into following three classes:

i. in which mines and quarries are purchased outright

ii. in which ownership is not acquired but only an interest in land and

iii. in which there is not even an interest in land but there is an arrangement in praesenti and de futuro to ensure supply of raw material.

23. The contention was that barring the first category, the other two categories exclude a case of the expenditure being considered as a capital expenditure. The further contention was that the case fell under the third category which incidentally is also the contention on behalf of the assessee in the present case.

24. On behalf of the assessee, reliance was sought to be placed on the decision of the judicial committee in the case of Mohanlal Hargovind Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1949] 17 ITR 473 (PC), in which there was an agreement to purchase tendu leaves as raw material for manufacture of bidis. The argument to substitute sand and gravel for tendu leaves was not accepted. The Judicial committee held thus:

“But I cannot say the same of the sand and gravel, part of the earth itself, which was the subject of the contract in the present case and which I think could only become part of the stock-in-trade of this gravel merchants' business when it had, in the true sense, been won, been excavated and been taken into their possession.”

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pingle Industries Ltd. expressed its concurrence with the view as expressed. The following observations in the context of what is held in the case of Mohanlal Hargovind's case are apposite. “We are in entire agreement that such a distinction is not only palpable but also sensible. The present case is a fortiori. Here, the stones are not lying on the surface but are part of a quarry from which they have to be extracted methodically and skillfully before they can be dressed and sold. These deposits are extensive, and the work of the assessee carries him deep under the earth. Such a deposit cannot be described as the stock-in-trade of the assessee, but stones detached and won can only be so described.”

26. Thus, we find that the reliance placed by the ITAT on certain submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee in the case of Pingle Industries Ltd. is entirely misplaced. We find that the ITAT has failed to appreciate that in fact, in that case, a similar contention on behalf of the assessee as in the present case was negatived.

27. We would now propose to make a brief reference to the other decisions cited on behalf of the parties.

28. In the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate, the assessee which was a registered firm was carrying on the business of manufacture of lime from limestone. The government had sanctioned leasing out of a certain area of lime deposits in favour of the assessee on an agreement to pay royalty of Rs.96,000/- per annum. The question was whether it was a capital or a revenue expenditure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that in that case there was annual payment of royalty or dead rent and no lumpsum payment was ever settled or paid. In such circumstances, it was found that the payment was not a direct payment for securing an enduring advantage, but had a relation to the raw material to be obtained. It is significant to note that the case of Pingle Industries Ltd. was cited on behalf of the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the said case is distinguishable on the ground that in the case of Pingle Industries Ltd., there was a lumpsum payment for acquiring a capital asset of enduring benefit to his trade. It is necessary to emphasize that in the present case also, there is a lumpsum payment for acquiring an advantage of an enduring nature.

29. In the case of Aditya Minerals (P) Ltd.,the Hon'ble Supreme Court finding an apparent conflict in the decision in the case of Pingle Industies Ltd. and Gotan Lime Syndicate's case had referred the issue to a larger bench. The matter was placed before a constitution bench. The constitution bench found that there was material difference in the facts as obtaining in the case of Pingle Industies Ltd. and Gotan Lime Syndicate. In the case of Aditya Minerals (P) Ltd., on facts, it was found that the case involved payment of rent for the land that was leased. The rent was payable at the rate of Rs.35/- per acre per month. The assessee was required to pay the rent in advance, for the entire period of the lease which was fifteen years. The advance deposit so made was adjustable against rent of each month and it carried no interest. In such circumstances, on facts, it was held that the case was on par with the case of Pingle Industries Ltd. and the assessee's Appeal was dismissed.

30. We now propose to make a brief reference to the cases cited on behalf of the respondent.

31. In the case of Associated Cement Industries Ltd., the Company was running a cement factory at Shahabad. The factory premises were included in the municipal area. A tripartite agreement was entered into between the government, the municipality and the Company whereby the Company had undertaken to supply water to the municipality and provide water pipeline, to supply electricity for street lighting and to put up a transmission line for laying of the main road from the factory to the railway station, in consideration of which the Company got exemption from paying tax for a period of fifteen years. As per the terms agreed, the pipeline was eventually to become the property of the municipality. It was in these circumstances held that the amount spent for providing the pipeline was a revenue expenditure as the advantage secured, namely, the exemption from paying m

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

unicipal taxes for a period of fifteen years was only in the field of revenue. We find that the case is clearly distinguishable on facts. 32. In the case National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., the assessee Company was in the business of manufacturing of chemicals. The company constructed a jetty under a licence granted by the government for the purpose of handling chemicals manufactured by it. Under the terms of the agreement the jetty was always to belong to the government. The assessee was however given preferential rights to use the jetty without payment of any charges for a period of three years after which it was required to pay fees in the discretion of the government. This Court found that the expenditure was incurred to obtain commercial advantage and to facilitate trading and thus, was a revenue expenditure. The case is distinguishable on facts as the expenditure was incurred to obtain advantage in the field of revenue, namely, to save fees for the use of the jetty and to have a commercial advantage of the preferential use of the same. What is significant is that the jetty was to belong to the government. We are unable to see as to how the case can come to the aid of the assessee in the present case. 33. Lastly, in the case of Madras Auto Services (P) Ltd., the assessee had taken premises on lease for a period of thirty nine years. The lease premises were eventually demolished and a new building was constructed by the assessee at its expense which as per the terms agreed, belonged to the lessor. The assessee got the user of the building at a concessional rent. The question was whether the amount spent on the construction of the building was deductible as a revenue expenditure. It was held that by spending the amount on the construction of the building, the assessee did not acquire any capital asset in as much as the building belonged to the lessor. The only advantage the assessee got was of a concessional rent which was for obtaining a business advantage and was thus a revenue expenditure. The case in our opinion turned on its own facts. 34. We find that the reliance placed by the ITAT on certain submissions made on behalf of the assessee in the case of Pingle Industries Ltd. is misplaced. We also find that the ITAT could not have held that because the mine continued to belong to the Government (in fact the mineral rights would always belong to the Government) and the observation that the facts speak for themselves are insufficient to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact properly recorded by the AO and the CIT (Appeals). We find that the respondent had obtained a long term captive source of the raw material by purchase of right from Texmaco. However, at the same time the raw material was required to be won, gotten and brought to the surface and as such, cannot be said to be a stock in trade as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at serial no. II is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant. The Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the ITAT on the aforesaid issue no. (II), is hereby set aside. The order passed by the AO on the aforesaid issue, as confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) is hereby restored. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

08-10-2020 C. Rajakumari & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Industries (MIA), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
11-09-2020 M/s. S.M. Cement Industries Rep. By One of Its Partners Namely, Manoj Sureka, Assam Versus Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 MS Industries & Spirits (P) Ltd. Versus M/s. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2020 K. Manikkan, Railway Liason Officer, Malabar Cements Limited, Walayar Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary, Industries (H) Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 L. Ahmed Abdul Razack Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-08-2020 M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Dilawar Singh Rawat & Another High Court of Delhi
06-08-2020 Rajiv Bal Versus Harrison Industries, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Shailendra Singh Versus M/s. Vittal Cashew Industries, Represented by its Partner H. Ganesh Kamath & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-08-2020 R.V. Granites, rep. by its Managing Partner S. Padmavathi Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines.II) Department Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 N.M. Chandrashekar Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Rep. by its Authorised representative Goregaon Mumbai Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 M/s. Durga Fabrication Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Prakash Ramu Rathod Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Prakash Industries Limited. Versus Bengal Energy Limited. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-06-2020 Khaleed Pasha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries (MSME, Mines & Textile), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Tips Industries Ltd. Versus Entertainment Network (Kindia) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-05-2020 Spentex Industries Ltd Versus Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP High Court of Delhi
05-05-2020 Mohamed Tanveer Versus The State of Karnataka by Addl. Chief Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-05-2020 Agricola Enterprises Ltd. & Another Versus Ministry for Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Versus M/s. Iceberg Industries Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Exide Industries Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 Lakshmi Sriniavasa Rice Mills, Rep. by its Partners, K. Kallappa Versus Lakshmi Srinivas Industries, Rep. by its Partners, T. Nageswara Rao, Raichur & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
20-03-2020 M/s. CJP Industries, Represented by its Managing Partner S. Julius Versus Amitha Bishnoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 A Marine Industries Munambam, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Proprietor, P.T. Francis & Others Versus UCO Bank, Represented by The Chief Manager, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Peps Industries Private Limited Versus Kurlon Limited High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Sai Electromech Industries, A Sole Proprietary Concern rep.by Its Proprietor Umangkumar Joshi Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory S. Mahadevan High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Ballarpur Industries Limited & Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Forests, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 Electrosteel Steels Limited, Bokaro & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
04-03-2020 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalaym Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Bank of India V/S M/s. Brindavan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. Versus Videocon Industries Ltd. (Through) High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Labour-cum-Specified Authority & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 Kamal Encon Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-02-2020 M/s Century Rayon (A division of Century Textile & Industries Ltd.), Maharashtra V/S Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its, Chief Engineer (Commercial), Maharashtra And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
20-02-2020 Asian Food Industries Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Rajasthan & Others Versus Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited (Institution of Rajasthan Government) Through Managing Director, Ugyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Gail (India) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 M/s. Tanfac Industries Limited, Rep. by its Secretary G. Balasubramanian Versus M/s. Orichem Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited V/S Laxmi Balaji Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
07-02-2020 M/s. S.K.J. Coke Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Coal India Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Andhra Bank V/S Suguna Industries Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
06-02-2020 K. Arumugham, Prop. Seetha Industries, Arakandanalu, Villupuram V/S The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments, Chennai And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 HDFC Bank Ltd. V/S JNK Electrical Industries Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
05-02-2020 P. Krishnan Versus The Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce (Industrial Co-operatives)/(District Registrar of Industrial Co-op), Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 D. Vasantha Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Commerce & Industries Department (MSME & Mines), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 B.H. Srinivasa Murthy Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 Sheo Shakti Cement Industries, Hazaribagh Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
04-02-2020 M/s. K.T.V. Health Food Private Limited Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Industries Department Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Punjab National Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-02-2020 Ishwar Oil Industries and Others. V/S The Authorized Officer, Dena Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 Vimal Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary/Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Authorised Signatory, New Delhi Versus M/s. Durga Bricks Industries, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-01-2020 M/s. Elgi Electric & Industries Limited, Rep. by General Manager, Coimbatore Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Trichy Road Assessment Circle, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Century Rayon (A Division of Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Maharashtra Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-01-2020 Vanessa Crasto Versus Central Public Information Officer Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. Central Information Commission
27-01-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus Vilson Particle Board Industries Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-01-2020 The Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., (SIPCOT), Egmore, Chennai Versus The Special Tahsildar, SIPCOT Unit Sriprumbudur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 M/s. NMR Industries, Rep. by its Proprietor M. Raja, Chennai Versus The Managing Director, The TIIC Ltd., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. Versus Resolution Professional of Videocon Industries Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
21-01-2020 M/s. Slar Machines & Methods, Rep. by its Partner, V. Saravanabhavan Versus The Branch Manager, National Small Industries Corporation Limited, Hosur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Maa Tarini Industries Ltd. & Another Versus PEC Limited High Court of Delhi
14-01-2020 M/s. Vijeta Projects & Industries Limited Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
10-01-2020 Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Versus Kosan Industries (P)Ltd. Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 M/s. Singapore Reality Private Limited, Represented by its Director having office at T. Nagar, Chennai also at Siruseri Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Viju M. Ittoop Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Industries Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 Chowgule Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Krishna Shrikant Kumbhar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-01-2020 M/s. Maa Bhadrakali Coke Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Dhanbad Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-01-2020 M/s. Refex Industries Limited, Kanchipuram District & Others V/S The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Bengal Hammer Industries P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
03-01-2020 P. Dhanalakshmi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2020 Allahabad Bank V/S Dobhi Agro Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
02-01-2020 Kaushal Ramesh Mehta Versus Metallica Industries Ltd. & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
02-01-2020 Himadri Speciality Chemicals and Industries Limited V/S Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
27-12-2019 Shah Metal Industries Versus G.L. Rexroth Industries Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta