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 61High Court2001#2368 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 115JB Section 143(3)Section 144C Section 31(i)Section 32(1)(iia)

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)test of enduring benefit section 35dd section 115ja mat credit section 72a section 147(b)section 28(iv)section 115jaa section 80h section 2(31)section 147(a)

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

The ITO, Ward-8(4), Ahmedabad vs. Zydus Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result ground no. 3 (a) of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2236/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jigar M. Patel, A.R

Section 80Section 80A

…t the second proviso to Section 80-IAB of the 3 . A.Y. 2010-11 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. 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 assessee, the ld. CIT(A) followed the order of his predecessor for A.Y. 2009-10…

Rewas Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 758/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr.P.Danial

Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 57

…he cost of the asset or the same is to be granted as a revenue expenditure for the reason that the assessee was already in. business, the provisions of section 36 (l)(iii) cannot be read in isolation but have to be read with s.43 (1). DCIT vs. Core Healthcare 251 ITR 61 (Guj) dissented from. Further S. 36(1)(iii) does not confer a deduction borrowed for the purposes of setting up a new unit even in the case of an assessee already in business. Deduction for interest on capital borrowed can be allowed only after the asset is first put to use and started generating income. Then it is implicit from Expl 8 to sec 43(1…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4374/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…well reasoned order. The ld.AR also submitted that an identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court and in support of his contention he relied on the following decisions : A) CIT V/s Gujarat Mineral Devp.Corp. (1981) 132 ITR 377(Guj); which is affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and reported in (2001) 249 ITR 787; B) National Organic Chemicals Ltd V/s CIT (1993) 203 ITR 410 (Bom) C) CIT V/s Associated Cementg Co. Ltd (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); D) CIT V/s Samsung India Ele.c Ltd (2014) 222 Taxman 21 (Del) E) Add.CIT V/s Dhampur Sugar Mills (P) Ltd (2015) 370 ITR 194 (All)…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

M/S Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 715/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ue expenditure in the year in which the plant starts functioning. The following are the decisions of various High Courts on this issue: ITA NO.715/Kol/2015-M/s. Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 (1) CIT Vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation 132 ITR 377 (Gujarat) wherein the facts were that the Assessee paid to the Government mones for the purpose of laying electric cables and other transmissions lines to carry on manufacturing activities. The expenditure was claimed as revenue expenditure. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court upheld the claim of the Assessee and observed that the peculiar feature in…

DCIT, CC-Xxv, Kolkata vs. M/S Dpil Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue on this ground is dismissed

ITA 209/KOL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No209/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2002-2003) Dcit, Cc-Xxv, Vs. M/S Dpil Limited, 110, Shantipally, 4B, Hungerford Street, 5Th Floor, Suvira House, Kolkata-700107 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd 1665 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Agnibesh Sengupta, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2002-2003, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv,Kolkata, In Appeal No.160/Cit(A)-Iv/04-05, Dated 30.09.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 15.02.2005. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.10.2002 Along With The Audited Balance Sheet & The Tax Audit Report, Declaring A Loss Of Rs.5,18,44,247/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition On Account Of Interest On Term Loan, Proportionate Expenses On Account Of Exempted Income U/S 14A

For Appellant: Shri Agnibesh Sengupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…with cost would not be proper in the case of the appellant. It is also seen that the appellant incurred interest expenditure on Loan which was used exclusively for the purpose of acquisition of Tea Estates. In the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 61 (Guj), the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat held that Interest paid towards borrowings made for the purpose of acquiring new machineries in an existing business, though pertaining to the period prior' to commencement of production, was allowable as deduction under s.36(l)(iii). The relevant portion of the order, for the sake of convenience, is reprod…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by revenue is dismissed whereas Cross objection filed by assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 4688/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman

…refore, cannot be regarded as conclusive one way or the other. The true nature of the transaction in each case has to be determined on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of that case." CIT Vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation {132 ITR 377} (Guj) 'The fact that certain entries were made or not mode in a particular year on account is totally immaterial and, in any event, such entries ore nat decisive or conclusive of the matter." 5.12 The appellant argued that the loss had arisen on cancellation of foreign currency derivative contracts which is legally permissible under FEMA. None o…

DCIT, Circle - 5, Kolkata vs. M/S. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 589/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘A’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] Assessment Year : 2007-08 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. -versus- Addl. C.I.T., Range-5, Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AAACE6607L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle-5, -versus- Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AAACE6607L) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Assessee: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA For the Department : Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 17.05.2016. Date of Pronouncement :20.05.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM ITA No.352/Ko…

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 5, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147