ACIT v. Choice Trading Corp.Ltd.

102 ITD 110Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16407 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Choice Trading Corp.Ltd.

Rain Cements Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Advocate Prathishta Singh &For Respondent: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

…ch is reasonable expenditure having regard maximize to the circumstances of the case. No businessman can be compelled to its profit". Further, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ATE Enterprise out of borrowed Ltd vs JCIT (102 ITD 110) in which it has held that the acquisition of shares funds for increasing with the holding in its company was closely connected the assessee's business and therefore the interest accruing on the borrowed funds was deductible u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. While pronouncing the above ruling, the Tribunal held that: "we hold that the assessee is entitl…

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

…for making investment in company for acquiring controlling interest / strategic interest is an allowable expenditure: Phil Corporation Ltd. (202 Taxman 368)(Bom) CIT vs Anand Technology Resource Park (P.) Ltd (202 Taxman 654)(Kar) ATE Enterprise Ltd vs JCIT (102 ITD 110) (Mum) CIT v Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria (80 Taxman 572) (Cal) CIT Vs. Jardine Henderson Ltd. (70 Taxman 36 we would also like to bring to your notice that similar disallowances for AY 2009Ay 201 0-11, AY 2011-12 have been deleted by the DRP. 13 A.Y. 2014-15 However, as the revenue has 10 erred an appeal, the DRP has not given this relief for AY 201…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1298/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 27

…n no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. A similar view has been adopted by the ITAT. Kolkata Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Binani Industries Ltd (supra) & ITAT, Mumbai Benches in the cases of Garware Wall Ropes Limited (540S/Mum/2012), ATE Enterprises Limited (102 ITD 110) and Shristi Securities Pvt. Ltd (148 Taxman 49). The Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajeev Lochan Kanoria (208 ITR 616) has similarly held that where an assessee acquires shares of other companies with a view to acquire controlling interest then use of borrowed funds for acquiring shares amounts to business purpose and therefore interest is…

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 3002/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 805/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3002/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Wockhardt Hospitals Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ltd., Income Tax – Range 10(1), V. Wockhardt Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacw3342G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepari D.R
Section 115JSection 36

…as well as in future years. In these circumstances, by relying on the following the decisions, ld. AR contended that no disallowance should be made u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act :- i) ACIT vs. Choice Trading Corp.Ltd., 90 ITD 1 ii) ATE Enterprises Ltd. Vs. JCIT, 102 ITD 110; and 7. We have considered rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee has claimed to have investment for acquiring land for constructing its hospital. On such investment, neither during the year nor in the future years assessee has earned any dividend income. Keeping in view the judicial pronouncements referred by the ld. AR, we resto…

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 805/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 805/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3002/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Wockhardt Hospitals Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ltd., Income Tax – Range 10(1), V. Wockhardt Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacw3342G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepari D.R
Section 115JSection 36

…as well as in future years. In these circumstances, by relying on the following the decisions, ld. AR contended that no disallowance should be made u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act :- i) ACIT vs. Choice Trading Corp.Ltd., 90 ITD 1 ii) ATE Enterprises Ltd. Vs. JCIT, 102 ITD 110; and 7. We have considered rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee has claimed to have investment for acquiring land for constructing its hospital. On such investment, neither during the year nor in the future years assessee has earned any dividend income. Keeping in view the judicial pronouncements referred by the ld. AR, we resto…

ACIT v. Choice Trading Corp.Ltd. (102 ITD 110) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax