KAPIL GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not carrying on a banking business and does not require a license. The interest paid was expended wholly and exclusively for earning the interest income, and similar claims were allowed in previous years.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction for interest paid against interest income, arguing it was for commercial expediency. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this deduction, stating the assessee lacked a competent authority certificate for such activities, implying a banking business. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.
What were the issues?
Whether interest paid by an individual for advancing loans and earning interest income is deductible under Section 57 of the IT Act without a banking license, especially when similar deductions were allowed in prior years.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. S C Kothari111 citing82 ITR 794 · 1971 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Piara Singh95 citing124 ITR 40 · 1980 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Shree PanchagangaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd.5 citing250 ITR 772 · HC
- CIT v. Kothari4 citing213 ITR 384 · 1995 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM &
PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.08.2023 of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A), NFAC is wro
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- R K Dreamland, Rajkot vs DCIT, CC-1, RajkotRajkot11 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Piara Singh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were not invalid, dismissing the Assessee's ground regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148. Regarding the addition of 'on-money' receipt, ...
- R K Dreamland, Rajkot vs DCIT, CC-1, RajkotRajkot11 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Piara Singh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under section 148 and the subsequent proceedings under section 147 was not elaborated upon by the parties, and therefore, it was not decided. Regarding th...
- R K Dreamland, Rajkot vs DCIT, CC-1, RajkotRajkot11 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Piara Singh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were not challenged by the Revenue, and therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the invalidity of the notice under Section 148 was not pressed. Regard...
- Radhe Developers, Rajkot vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Rajkot10 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Piara Singh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that while 'on-money' receipts were established, the estimation of profit by the lower authorities was excessive. The Tribunal directed that the profit on 'on-money' should be taxed at 10%.
- Krishna Developers, Rajkot vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Rajkot9 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Piara Singh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that while 'on-money' receipts are taxable, the estimation of profit by the CIT(A) at 16% was too high. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents and the assessee's average profit, the Tribunal dir...
More judgments on Section 57
- Dattatraya Prakash Wankar, Solapur vs ITO WD-2(3), SolapurITA 2210/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aurelia Housing Coperative Society Ltd… vs I.T.O., Ward - 49(4), KolkataITA 2198/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 66/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-Exemp, VadodaraITA 914/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-Exemp, VadodaraITA 913/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
