Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (2.36 seconds)
Documents citing Niko Resources Limited vs Union Of India & on 26 March, 2015

Joshi Technologies International ... vs The Asstt. Dit, (Intl. Taxn.),, ... on 25 October, 2021

23.1. As the facts in the case on hand and the facts of the case as discussed in the case of Niko Resources Ltd (supra) are identical, therefore, respectfully following the order of the jurisdictional High Court as discussed above, we hold that the oil well is part of the plant and machinery. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hindustan Colas Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit Cir 6(3), Mumbai on 20 October, 2022

42. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Niko Resources Ltd. vs. Union of India (2015) 374 ITR 369 (Gujarat) has also dealt 38 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited with the issue whether natural gas is covered by the term "mineral oil" for the purpose of section 80IB, wherein it is held that the expression "mineral oil" would include and encompass within itself both petroleum products and natural gas by returning following findings:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tata Petrodyne Ltd, Mumbai vs Asst Cit 2(3), Mumbai on 8 March, 2019

Secondly, though, it may be a fact that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Niko Resources Ltd. (supra) has struck down Explanation to section 80IB(9) of the Act by declaring it as ultra-virus of Article-14 of the Constitution of India, however, it cannot be ignored that no decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on the issue is available. Moreover, the Tribunal being a creature of the statute is not competent to examine or decide the constitutional validity/vires of a provision contained in the statute. Had it been a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal would have been bound by the law declared therein.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vedanta Ltd. (Erstwhile Cairn India ... vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & on 1 August, 2017

15. We are conscious that the order of the Supreme Court does not take within its fold any pending appeal before the Tribunal. Strictly speaking therefore counsel for the petitioner may be correct in contending that there is no stay against the Tribunal proceeding further in such tax appeals. However, in the present case, it is not the question of the legality of power on part of the Tribunal, but propriety in proceeding or not proceeding with the appeals. When admittedly one of the issues involved in such tax appeals is of the effect of clause (iv) of newly substituted sub- section (9) of section 80IB of the Act and consequently, the ratio laid down by the High Court in case of Niko Resources Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal cannot be faulted for deciding not to proceed further with the bunch of appeals till the Supreme Court finally cleared the issues. We see no impropriety or legal error in the Tribunal choosing this option.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

M/S.Cairn India Ltd vs Director Of Income Tax (International ...

(xix) Both the DIT and the Tribunal failed to note the ratio of the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in : Niko Resources Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 55 Taxmann.com 455 - which held that each well/cluster of wells is an undertaking for the purposes of claiming deduction under Section 80IB(9) of the 1961 Act. The DIT and the Tribunal failed to appreciate that deduction under Section 80IB(9) of the 1961 Act is allowed to an undertaking and not to a block. The finding recorded by DIT that the Assessment Officer had not examined the claim in respect of the LGF unit is vague, when a similar plea in respect of the SGF unit had, clearly, been examined.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Tata Petrodyne Ltd, Mumbai vs Asst Cit 2(3), Mumbai on 28 September, 2018

24. Insofar as the grounds raised towards claim of deduction under section 80IB(9) of the Act are concerned, in the main ground the assessee has raised the issue of computation of deduction under section 80IB(9) of the Act whether should be restricted to profits and gains of business or profession or gross total income. Whereas, in the additional grounds, the assessee has raised the issue of claim of deduction under section 80IB(9) of the Act in respect of each oil well as a separate undertaking by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Niko Resources Ltd. (supra). While deciding identical issue in ITA no.4887/Mum./2012. We have restored similar issue raised in the additional grounds to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on identical issue. Since, the issue relating to claim of deduction under section 80IB(9) of the Act as raised in the additional ground is the core issue to be decided, we are inclined to restore all the issues relating to assessee's claim of deduction under section 80IB(9) of the Act as raised in the main as well as additional grounds to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication keeping in view our direction 21 Tata Petrodyne Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next