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.

How many judgments cite (1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd.?

49 judgments on BharatTax cite (1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (251 ITR 61), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 35(2AB), Section 37(1), Section 40(a)(i), Section 115JB, Section 143(3), Section 144C.

(1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (251 ITR 61)

M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2594/AHD/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 1998-1999

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 Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2140/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

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. M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 788/AHD/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

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 Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 66/AHD/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

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 Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wrd-4(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 764/AHD/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2001-02

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 ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1190/AHD/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2001-02

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 ACIT, Central Caircle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 855/AHD/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)

…he appellant during the appeal hearing. I have also gone through the various judgments, referred to above, relied upon by the appellant company. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of by. CIT Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (251 ITR 61) (Guj), I am in complete agreement with my predecessors and accordingly, I held that the disallowance of interest of Rs. 35,65,05,757/- is deleted.” 29. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 30. Before us, the Ld. D/R relied upon the assessment-order and argued that the Ld. AO has made addition perfect…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3210/AHD/2003[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)

…he appellant during the appeal hearing. I have also gone through the various judgments, referred to above, relied upon by the appellant company. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of by. CIT Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (251 ITR 61) (Guj), I am in complete agreement with my predecessors and accordingly, I held that the disallowance of interest of Rs. 35,65,05,757/- is deleted.” 29. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 30. Before us, the Ld. D/R relied upon the assessment-order and argued that the Ld. AO has made addition perfect…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3209/AHD/2003[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)

…he appellant during the appeal hearing. I have also gone through the various judgments, referred to above, relied upon by the appellant company. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of by. CIT Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (251 ITR 61) (Guj), I am in complete agreement with my predecessors and accordingly, I held that the disallowance of interest of Rs. 35,65,05,757/- is deleted.” 29. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 30. Before us, the Ld. D/R relied upon the assessment-order and argued that the Ld. AO has made addition perfect…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3208/AHD/2003[97-98]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)

…he appellant during the appeal hearing. I have also gone through the various judgments, referred to above, relied upon by the appellant company. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of by. CIT Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (251 ITR 61) (Guj), I am in complete agreement with my predecessors and accordingly, I held that the disallowance of interest of Rs. 35,65,05,757/- is deleted.” 29. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 30. Before us, the Ld. D/R relied upon the assessment-order and argued that the Ld. AO has made addition perfect…

The ACIT, Cen- Cir 2(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Mardia Chemicals Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3437/AHD/2002[93-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)

…he appellant during the appeal hearing. I have also gone through the various judgments, referred to above, relied upon by the appellant company. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of by. CIT Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (251 ITR 61) (Guj), I am in complete agreement with my predecessors and accordingly, I held that the disallowance of interest of Rs. 35,65,05,757/- is deleted.” 29. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 30. Before us, the Ld. D/R relied upon the assessment-order and argued that the Ld. AO has made addition perfect…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Apollo Tyres Ltd

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

…rior 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 l…

M/S. Ceebros Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3372/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 09.02.2021

Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…preferred an appeal before CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the Assessing Officer and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd., (2001) 251 ITR 61. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) are that interest paid on loan borrowed for the purpose of business cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, when such business has been commenced and further revenue has been recognized 11 from the business. The assessee further contended that the Assessing Off…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 1461/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…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 has preferred the present appeal. "7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. We find that this Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 194/167 Taxman 206 has affirmed the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. 9. In this view of the matter, we are of the c…

M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…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 has preferred the present appeal. "7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. We find that this Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 194/167 Taxman 206 has affirmed the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. 9. In this view of the matter, we are of the c…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 929/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR

Section 92B

…nti 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 econsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 922/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR

Section 92B

…nti 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 econsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1237/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR

Section 92B

…nti 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 econsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1234/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR

Section 92B

…nti 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 econsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was…

The DCIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Zydus Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1088/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1088/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Jigar M. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…e firm belief that the second proviso to Section 80-IAB of the Act is specifically applicable in case of transferee developer and in case of a developer of SEZ. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Core Healthcare Ltd. 251 ITR 61. The A.O. dismissed the claim of deduction. Zydus Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT,Cir-4(1)(2) Asst.Year – 2011-12 The A.O. further restricted the claim of depreciation @ 60% on computer software license to 25%. 5. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and was successful in getting the relief. While allowing the relief to the assesse…

(1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wrd-4(2), Ahmedabad

The ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

The ACIT, Central Caircle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

The ACIT, Cen- Cir 2(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Mardia Chemicals Ltd, Ahmedabad

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Apollo Tyres Ltd

M/S. Ceebros Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi

M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1, Vadodara

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

The DCIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Zydus Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad