(1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd.

251 ITR 61High Court2001#2393 most cited

What is (1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. authority for?

Interest paid on money borrowed for acquiring machinery is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) even if the machinery is not put to use in the year of borrowing. This principle applies to the 'for the purpose of business' test for borrowed capital.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. · 251 ITR 61 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest on borrowed capital · machinery not put to use · deduction of interest · purpose of business loan · capital reduction interest · Gujarat High Court · borrowed funds for capital assets

Sections most often in play

Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 31(i)Section 32(1)(iia)

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)test of enduring benefitsection 35ddsection 115jamat creditsection 72asection 147(b)section 28(iv)section 115jaasection 80hsection 2(31)section 147(a)

Judgments citing (1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd.

TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2549/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2549/Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Tata Teleservices Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Jeevan Bharati Tower-1, Income Tax, Circle-25(1), 10Th Floor, Vs. C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 24, Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaact2438A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…& Payment Services (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax-III (ITA No. 603/2014) (Delhi High Court) Indian Visit.com (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IV (ITA No. 1011/2008) (Delhi HC) CIT vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (1980) (132 ITR 377) (Guj) Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT 1951 (20 ITR 1) (SC) S. A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (A) 2007 (288) ITR 1 (SC) Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. vs. CIT. [1997] 223 ITR 101 (SC) CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC). Further the assessee has submitted that, "The assessee further submits that wherever…

NV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

ITA 1418/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT\n&\nSHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 1418/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nN V Projects Private Limited\nGround Floor, Block D\nS. No. 30/3, 31/1 & 2A\nWeikfield IT Citi Info Park\nViman Nagar\nPune - 411041\n[PAN: AACCD2669P]\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nVs\nDeputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Circle 1(2)(2),\nMumbai\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\nI.T.A. No. 1025/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDeputy Commissioner

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 36(1)(iii)

…rest paid on the money borrowed for reduction of capital is not for\nthe purpose of business. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the\ndecisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Deputy\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax vs Core Healthcare Ltd [2001]251 ITR 61(Guj)\nand the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investments\nLimited v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC).\nThe ld. D/R placed strong reliance on the assessment order and\nthe order of the ld. CIT(A) and read the operative part.\n6. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below\nand the judicial decision…

DCIT-5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. N V PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

ITA 1025/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT\n&\nSHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 1418/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nN V Projects Private Limited\nGround Floor, Block D\nS. No. 30/3, 31/1 & 2A\nWeikfield IT Citi Info Park\nViman Nagar\nPune - 411041\n[PAN: AACCD2669P]\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nVs\nDeputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Circle 1(2)(2),\nMumbai\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\nI.T.A. No. 1025/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDeputy Commissioner

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 36(1)(iii)

…rest paid on the money borrowed for reduction of capital is not for\nthe purpose of business. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the\ndecisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Deputy\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax vs Core Healthcare Ltd [2001]251 ITR 61(Guj)\nand the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investments\nLimited v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC).\nThe ld. D/R placed strong reliance on the assessment order and\nthe order of the ld. CIT(A) and read the operative part.\n6. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below\nand the judicial decision…

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

…ior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2003, in relation to money borrowed for purchase of machinery even though the assessee had not used the machinery in the year of borrowing. Decision of the Gujarat High Court in Deputy CIT v Core Health Care Ltd. [2001]251 ITR 61 affirmed on this point. Held also, remanding the matters to the High Court, that the questions: (a) whether advertisement expenses incurred by the assessee to create a brand image with enduring benefit are allowable as revenue expenditure (b) whether the Tribunal had erred in granting deduction under Section 35D regarding short-term loan, in view…

JT. CIT (ODS) - CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…ted to the assessee. Moreover, it was only a part of the cost of construction of these roads that was contributed..." 67. Attention of the Bench was also drawn to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation [1981] 132 ITR 377, where the assessee had laid out an expenditure which was paid over to the Gujarat Electricity Board for laying electric transmission lines and other ancillary facilities. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court took note of the fact that the transmission lines were to be the property of the Board and that the assessee was not acquiring a benefit of an en…

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…ted to the assessee. Moreover, it was only a part of the cost of construction of these roads that was contributed..." 67. Attention of the Bench was also drawn to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation [1981] 132 ITR 377, where the assessee had laid out an expenditure which was paid over to the Gujarat Electricity Board for laying electric transmission lines and other ancillary facilities. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court took note of the fact that the transmission lines were to be the property of the Board and that the assessee was not acquiring a benefit of an en…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…ted to the assessee. Moreover, it was only a part of the cost of construction of these roads that was contributed..." 67. Attention of the Bench was also drawn to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation [1981] 132 ITR 377, where the assessee had laid out an expenditure which was paid over to the Gujarat Electricity Board for laying electric transmission lines and other ancillary facilities. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court took note of the fact that the transmission lines were to be the property of the Board and that the assessee was not acquiring a benefit of an en…

M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT CIR-1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…ted to the assessee. Moreover, it was only a part of the cost of construction of these roads that was contributed..." 67. Attention of the Bench was also drawn to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation [1981] 132 ITR 377, where the assessee had laid out an expenditure which was paid over to the Gujarat Electricity Board for laying electric transmission lines and other ancillary facilities. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court took note of the fact that the transmission lines were to be the property of the Board and that the assessee was not acquiring a benefit of an en…

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4, NOW CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1657/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…act the said expenditure was incurred for removal of disadvantage or obstacle in its regular mining business. And have failed to appreciate the judgments in case of (a) Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. Vs CIT, 17 ITR 39 (S,C) (b) CIT Vs Ashok Leyland Ltd, (c) GMDC Vs. CIT 132 ITR 377 (Guj. High Court) (d) CIT Vs, GMDC 249 ITR 787 (S.C).” 49. As transpires from the orders of authorities below the AO found that the assessee had claimed this expenditure as having been incurred to divert course of river so that mining could be done at the place. The AO accordingly held the expenditure to be enduring in nature since the assessee w…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1471/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…act the said expenditure was incurred for removal of disadvantage or obstacle in its regular mining business. And have failed to appreciate the judgments in case of (a) Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. Vs CIT, 17 ITR 39 (S,C) (b) CIT Vs Ashok Leyland Ltd, (c) GMDC Vs. CIT 132 ITR 377 (Guj. High Court) (d) CIT Vs, GMDC 249 ITR 787 (S.C).” 49. As transpires from the orders of authorities below the AO found that the assessee had claimed this expenditure as having been incurred to divert course of river so that mining could be done at the place. The AO accordingly held the expenditure to be enduring in nature since the assessee w…

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1747/AHD/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…act the said expenditure was incurred for removal of disadvantage or obstacle in its regular mining business. And have failed to appreciate the judgments in case of (a) Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. Vs CIT, 17 ITR 39 (S,C) (b) CIT Vs Ashok Leyland Ltd, (c) GMDC Vs. CIT 132 ITR 377 (Guj. High Court) (d) CIT Vs, GMDC 249 ITR 787 (S.C).” 49. As transpires from the orders of authorities below the AO found that the assessee had claimed this expenditure as having been incurred to divert course of river so that mining could be done at the place. The AO accordingly held the expenditure to be enduring in nature since the assessee w…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. JATH WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1321/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit,Circle-2(1) Vs. Jath Wind Energy Private Room No.514 Limited 5Th Floor 8-2-684/A, Nsl Icon, Signature Towers 4Th Floor, Road No.12, Kondapur-500 084 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri Aliasager RampurawalaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(2)

…lowed expenditure on other items connected therewith. The High Court did not interfere in the appeal preferred by the Revenue on the ground that the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care [2001] 251 ITR 61. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the Commissioner of Income Tax bas preferred the present appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. We find that this Cou11 in the case of Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 1941/167 Taxman 206 has affirmed the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. 9. In this view of the matter, we are of the…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1520/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…ti v. State of Punjab, Ballabhadas Mathurdas Lakhani v. Municipal Committee, Matkapui, Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P and Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao.) 24. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Core Healthcare Ltd. 251 ITR 61 has observed as under:- As laid down by the apex court in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 1762 ; [1980] 3 SCC 719 (page 1764 of AIR 1980 SC): “Every new discovery or/argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1519/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…ti v. State of Punjab, Ballabhadas Mathurdas Lakhani v. Municipal Committee, Matkapui, Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P and Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao.) 24. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Core Healthcare Ltd. 251 ITR 61 has observed as under:- As laid down by the apex court in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 1762 ; [1980] 3 SCC 719 (page 1764 of AIR 1980 SC): “Every new discovery or/argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1463/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…ti v. State of Punjab, Ballabhadas Mathurdas Lakhani v. Municipal Committee, Matkapui, Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P and Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao.) 24. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Core Healthcare Ltd. 251 ITR 61 has observed as under:- As laid down by the apex court in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 1762 ; [1980] 3 SCC 719 (page 1764 of AIR 1980 SC): “Every new discovery or/argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1462/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…ti v. State of Punjab, Ballabhadas Mathurdas Lakhani v. Municipal Committee, Matkapui, Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P and Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao.) 24. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Core Healthcare Ltd. 251 ITR 61 has observed as under:- As laid down by the apex court in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 1762 ; [1980] 3 SCC 719 (page 1764 of AIR 1980 SC): “Every new discovery or/argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was…

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…by the assessee to the government for laying cables and other transmission lines, necessary for installation of its new plant, which remained the property of the Government, would be allowable as a deduction- CIT vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corpn. (1981) 132 ITR 377 (Guj.) 4. Such expenditure did not bring any new asset/ advantage so as to be termed as capital. Hence the impugned disallowance kindly be deleted in full.Hence this ground by the assessee.” 7.1.7 On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the findings recorded by the authorities below and justified the additions made and confirmed by the…

M/S. METROCHEM INDUSTRIESLTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 606/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

…Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 104 TTJ (Jd) 333. Whatever may be the treatment assessee might have given in the books of account will not be relevant and its true nature has to be decided as held in following three judgements:- (1) DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 61 (Guj) (2) CIT vs. Gujarat Mineral Dev. Corpn. (1981) 132 ITR 377 (3) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 37. Against this, ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 38. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the claim is basically revenue in nature as it is directly connected with salary expendi…

M/S. METROCHEM INDUSTRIESLTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 1076/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

…Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 104 TTJ (Jd) 333. Whatever may be the treatment assessee might have given in the books of account will not be relevant and its true nature has to be decided as held in following three judgements:- (1) DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 61 (Guj) (2) CIT vs. Gujarat Mineral Dev. Corpn. (1981) 132 ITR 377 (3) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 37. Against this, ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 38. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the claim is basically revenue in nature as it is directly connected with salary expendi…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. METROCHEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 87/AHD/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

…Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 104 TTJ (Jd) 333. Whatever may be the treatment assessee might have given in the books of account will not be relevant and its true nature has to be decided as held in following three judgements:- (1) DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 61 (Guj) (2) CIT vs. Gujarat Mineral Dev. Corpn. (1981) 132 ITR 377 (3) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 37. Against this, ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 38. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the claim is basically revenue in nature as it is directly connected with salary expendi…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3