Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs H P Power Transmission Corporation ... on 20 April, 2026 cites

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals And ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 8 July, 1997

21. In the present case the Ld.C ounsel for the ass essee h as drawn our attention to the facts pointing out that the lo ans had b een taken f rom ADB by t he assessee also amounting to Rs.1 1,056 lacs on which interest income of Rs.246.96 lacs had b een earned and that th ese loans w ere to be utilized for specific proj ects an d on accou nt of delay in the project in the project t he sa me had been parked in t emporary funds. The aforesaid f act s,clearly, are identical to that in the cas e of M/s H.P. Power Corporat ion Ltd.(supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 796 - Full Document

M/S Green Valley Tower Pvt. Ltd.,, New ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 15 January, 2021

In this factual backg round th e ITAT, foll owing its decisi on in the case of M/s ITA No.415 &436/CHD/2025 A.Y.2016-17 11 Bea s Valley Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.85 7/Chd/2012, had held that the int erest of such specifically borrowed funds be not s ubjected to tax. The Ld.C ounsel for th e assess ee thereafter stated that in the impugned cas e also th e assess ee had borrowed project specific fu nds fr om ADB and on accou nt of certain delays i n execution of the project the funds could not be utilized and w ere, therefore, par ked in FDRs earning interest thereon. The aforesaid facts were pointed ou t to us from the An nual Report of the asses see, pla ced b efore us as Ann exure-A to the Paper Book. Our attenti on was drawn to page 17 of the Annual Report and it was point ed o ut therefro m that the ass essee had taken loan from ADB amounting to Rs.1 1,056 lacs in the impugned year which s too d reflected in the schedule of Lo ng term borrowings (Schedule No .4 of th e Annu al R epor t). Further dr ew our attention to the copy of loan agreement entered into by th e assessee with A DB pla ced before us at P B p ag e No.2-2 9. Ld.Counsel specifically drew our attention to clause 5 of Schedule 3 of the agreement dealing with Allocation and Withdraw al of Loa n proceeds ,which read as u nd er :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bihar-Ii, ... vs Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro on 18 December, 1998

20. In the order passed by the ITAT in the case of HP Power Corpo ration in ITA No.842/Chd/20 14 dated 06 .05.2016,we find that it was n oted in the order at para 6 that th e assessee had b een found to ha ve borrowed certain amo unt from Asian Develop ment Bank (ADB) fo r specifi c project and on account of dela y in the project they had been parked in temporary investments in FDRs. The interest earn ed thereon was held b y the ITAT to b e not taxabl e following the view taken by the ITAT in the cas e of M/s Beas Valley Power Corporation Ltd. (supra) wh erein the decision of the Hon 'ble Apex Cou rt in the cas e of Tuticorin Al kali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (s upra) was found not app licable and the decision of the CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. on i dentical issu e was fo llow ed. We find that in the said case also the assessee ha d submitt ed that in the earlier years the issue had been decided by th e ITAT against the assessee but it was noted in the order that the fa cts during the year w ere partly di fferent with funds ha ving been borrowed for specific purp os e and parked in FDRs as temporary in vestments on accou nt of delay in the project. The rel evant fin din gs to this effect by the ITAT are at paras 6 to 8 of i ts order which sta nds reproduced abo ve in earl ier p art of our order. Thus th e disti nction in fa cts in the afor estated two orders is that while in the case of the assessee in earli er years the interest was fou nd to be ea rned on surplus funds and hence held taxable, in the case of HP P ower corporation (supr a) the interest wa s earned on specific purpose funds deposi ted in FDR's on account o f delay in execution of projects and th erefor e held not taxable .
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 372 - S V Manohar - Full Document

M/S Punjab State Power Corporation ... vs Dcit, Circle, Patiala on 24 May, 2019

23. The argument of the Ld.DR that ADB Loan was being ava iled by the assessee in both th e years establishes identity of facts ,we find, is not correct. Since the issu e before u s relates to int erest income earned , the rel evant fact is the nature an d co mpositio n of interest income earned ,i.e on surplus funds and specifi c purpose funds, which has been clearly distinguished fro m t he preceding year, and not the factum of loan. 24. We t herefore agree with the Ld.Couns el for the as sessee that the issue stands squarely co vered by the decision of the ITAT in the ca se of HP Power Corpor at ion (supra ), where identicall y the facts were found to be different from the preceding year on account of identical A DB loan ta ken for sp ecific project parked temporary in F DRs on account of delay in the project an d the ITAT holdin g the case to be d istinguis habl e from th e preced ing year had ruled in favou r of the assessee following the d ecision of the ITAT in the case of M/ s Beas Valley Power Corporation Ltd. (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1