Arunachalam v. CIT

227 ITR 222Supreme Court of India1997#5314 most cited

What is Arunachalam v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred by an assessee to discharge a mortgage created by a previous owner is an allowable deduction in computing capital gains, as it represents the cost of acquisition or perfecting an imperfect title. The assessee's payment to clear the encumbrance is not deductible for capital gains computation.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Arunachalam v. CIT · 227 ITR 222 · SC · capital gains · discharge of mortgage · cost of acquisition · imperfect title · clearing encumbrance · section 48 · section 55 · cost of improvement

Sections most often in play

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 194IASection 45

Issues it is cited on

section 55cost of improvementindexed cost of acquisitionsection 48section 143(2)transferpersoncompanyindiabusinessinterestsection 143(3)

Judgments citing Arunachalam v. CIT

SIVASUNDAR SELVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT
Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

…t the mortgage existed prior to transfer and the sale consideration was directly utilised to discharge the mortgage. Clearing of encumbrance is an allowable deduction in computing capital gains as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.M. Arunachalam vs. CIT (227 ITR 222), observed as under;“27………In taking the view that in a case where the property has been mortgaged by the previous owner during his lifetime and the assessee, after inheriting the same, has discharged the mortgage debt, the amount paid by him for the purpose of clearing off the mortgage is not deductible for the purpose of computation of capital…

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SARIPALLI VIMALA DEVI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Income Tax Officer - Ward-3(3) Vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi Iind Floor Flat No. 103, Sun N Sea Apartments East Point Colony Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam - 530017 Shankarmatam Road, Santhipuram Visakhapatnam - 530016 Pan: Bddps0883J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri C. Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Kameswara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 48

…ssessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, considering the submissions of the assessee allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Arunachalam vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 222 (SC). Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3.75 Crs made by the AO towards disallowance of additional cost of acquisition cla…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GOLDEN FALCON PACIFIC LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3895/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…f the addition to cost of acquisition in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Daksha Ramanlal reported in (1992) 197 ITR 123 (Guj) which has been approved by the Hon. Supreme court in the case of R. M. Arunachalam Vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 222 (SC) at Page 239. 8. It is also pertinent to mention here that the repayment loan to Standard Chartered Bank which was an amount of Rs.78 Crores in 2007. The bifurcation is as under: Prin. Rs.23.65,00,000/- Interest Rs.54,35,00,000/- Rs.78,00,00,000/- 9. The loans were taken in the year 1973 by Krishna Steels Ltd from State Bank of India which wa…

M/S. GOLDEN FALCON PACIFIC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…f the addition to cost of acquisition in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Daksha Ramanlal reported in (1992) 197 ITR 123 (Guj) which has been approved by the Hon. Supreme court in the case of R. M. Arunachalam Vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 222 (SC) at Page 239. 8. It is also pertinent to mention here that the repayment loan to Standard Chartered Bank which was an amount of Rs.78 Crores in 2007. The bifurcation is as under: Prin. Rs.23.65,00,000/- Interest Rs.54,35,00,000/- Rs.78,00,00,000/- 9. The loans were taken in the year 1973 by Krishna Steels Ltd from State Bank of India which wa…

HIRABAI BHAUSAHEB KATORE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

ITA 2844/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2844/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hirabai Bhausaheb Katore, Nimgaon Korhale, Taluka- Rahata, Ahmednagar-423 109. Pan : Csgpk1457F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri B. B. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

…of Rs. 36,00,000/-. 4 A.Y.2013-14 2.4 The Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) Miss Daun Dadabhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 651(SC) (b) CIT Vs. Daksha Ramanlal (1992) 197 ITR 123 ( Guj.) (c) R.M Arunachalam Vs. CIT, 227 ITR 222(SC) (d) CIT Vs. Manjula J. Shah 355 ITR 474 ( Bom) 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the orders of the Authorities below. 4. Feeing aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee filed appeal before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4.…

PERFECT THREAD MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4964/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu Vice Presedent,(As) Shri D. Karunakar Rao & Shri Amit Shukla, Sh. Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarperfect Thread Mills Ltd Vs Dcit, 8(2), Mumbai 201, Millenium Plaza Behind Sakinaka Telephone Exchange, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 72 Pan: Aaacp6449E Appellant Respondednt

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 255(4)Section 48

…ure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer. Assessee also relied on the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in such cases. Further, assessee relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.M. Arunchalam Etc vs. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 222 (SC) to support its case. Thus, the assessee submitted that AO failed to the fact that there was a pre-existing overriding title in favour of the bank by virtue of joint equitable mortgage created on 5.2.2009 on immovable properties of the assessee. On considering the above written submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) did not go with the said…

SMT. NANCY THUMBOO CHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1921/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswarajan Sasmal, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 54

…taken shelter on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Addl.CIT Vs. Glad Investments Private Limited (2006) 102 ITD 227. However, now on being convinced by my Chartered Accountant and in view of the Supreme Court decision reported in 227 ITR 222 and 227 ITR 240 in the cases of R.M. Arunchalam Vs. CIT and V.S.Malhotra V/s CIT respectively, explained to me, I compute my Capital Gains for A.Y.2006-2007 as under:-“ Sale consideration received Rs. 11,61,00,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition (at Rs.200 /sft for 1981) Rs. 3,91,64,778/- Balance Rs. 7,69,35,222/- Less: Deduction U/s.54…

SRI RAJKUMAR THUMBOO CHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1920/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswarajan Sasmal, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 54

…taken shelter on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Addl.CIT Vs. Glad Investments Private Limited (2006) 102 ITD 227. However, now on being convinced by my Chartered Accountant and in view of the Supreme Court decision reported in 227 ITR 222 and 227 ITR 240 in the cases of R.M. Arunchalam Vs. CIT and V.S.Malhotra V/s CIT respectively, explained to me, I compute my Capital Gains for A.Y.2006-2007 as under:-“ Sale consideration received Rs. 11,61,00,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition (at Rs.200 /sft for 1981) Rs. 3,91,64,778/- Balance Rs. 7,69,35,222/- Less: Deduction U/s.54…

SMT. RANJINI THUMBOO CHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1919/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswarajan Sasmal, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 54

…taken shelter on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Addl.CIT Vs. Glad Investments Private Limited (2006) 102 ITD 227. However, now on being convinced by my Chartered Accountant and in view of the Supreme Court decision reported in 227 ITR 222 and 227 ITR 240 in the cases of R.M. Arunchalam Vs. CIT and V.S.Malhotra V/s CIT respectively, explained to me, I compute my Capital Gains for A.Y.2006-2007 as under:-“ Sale consideration received Rs. 11,61,00,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition (at Rs.200 /sft for 1981) Rs. 3,91,64,778/- Balance Rs. 7,69,35,222/- Less: Deduction U/s.54…

KAPIL RAJKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3392/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3392/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kapil Rajkumar Jain Ito, Ward 1(3), बनाम/ 601, Paramount, H. N. Estate, Thane G.B. Road, Patlipada, Vs. Thane (W)-400 607 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afipj 4486 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kapil R. Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari

For Appellant: Shri Kapil R. JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 48

…sions of law and the case laws on the subject. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded as under: 6.6 The judgments discussed above lay down following principles: a). In view of judgements of Honble SC, in case of RM, Arunachalam's case [1997] 227 ITR 222 and V. S. M. R. Jaga-dishchandran's case [1997] 227 ITR 240 as the appellant had created the motgage and paid the interest, therefore as per law laid down by SC the appellant is not entitled to claim deduction of interest while computing capital gains. b). The interest paid to bank and claimed as deduction u/s 24 does not form part of cost of acq…

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2553/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

…y Pvt. Ltd. for the loan taken from them. The interest paid on the loan borrowed for the purchase of the asset can be claimed as a deduction from the income of such asset only in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RM. Arunachalam 227 ITR 222. The loan was taken from M/s. KGEYES Residency Pvt. Ltd. to repay the loan taken from the State Bank of India, to facilitate the assessee to get back the title deeds mortgaged with 12 I.T.A. Nos.2548-2553 & 2673-2674/M/14 State Bank of India. The loan from State Bank of India was taken for the purchase of the property. Therefore, the Assessing O…

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2551/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

…y Pvt. Ltd. for the loan taken from them. The interest paid on the loan borrowed for the purchase of the asset can be claimed as a deduction from the income of such asset only in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RM. Arunachalam 227 ITR 222. The loan was taken from M/s. KGEYES Residency Pvt. Ltd. to repay the loan taken from the State Bank of India, to facilitate the assessee to get back the title deeds mortgaged with 12 I.T.A. Nos.2548-2553 & 2673-2674/M/14 State Bank of India. The loan from State Bank of India was taken for the purchase of the property. Therefore, the Assessing O…

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2549/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

…y Pvt. Ltd. for the loan taken from them. The interest paid on the loan borrowed for the purchase of the asset can be claimed as a deduction from the income of such asset only in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RM. Arunachalam 227 ITR 222. The loan was taken from M/s. KGEYES Residency Pvt. Ltd. to repay the loan taken from the State Bank of India, to facilitate the assessee to get back the title deeds mortgaged with 12 I.T.A. Nos.2548-2553 & 2673-2674/M/14 State Bank of India. The loan from State Bank of India was taken for the purchase of the property. Therefore, the Assessing O…

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2548/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

…y Pvt. Ltd. for the loan taken from them. The interest paid on the loan borrowed for the purchase of the asset can be claimed as a deduction from the income of such asset only in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RM. Arunachalam 227 ITR 222. The loan was taken from M/s. KGEYES Residency Pvt. Ltd. to repay the loan taken from the State Bank of India, to facilitate the assessee to get back the title deeds mortgaged with 12 I.T.A. Nos.2548-2553 & 2673-2674/M/14 State Bank of India. The loan from State Bank of India was taken for the purchase of the property. Therefore, the Assessing O…

KAVITHA, L/H OF S.SHANMUGAM (LATE),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1105/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: 25.09.2017

…cquisition of the property and the same was liable to be considered when computing the capital gains in respect of the said properties. It was a submission that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Shri R.M.Arunachalam reported in 227 ITR 222 the payment made for the purpose of clearing of the mortgage created by the assessee’s father on the said properties were to be considered as a cost of improvement in respect of the said properties so as to perfect the title of the property inherited by the assessee. It was a submission that consequently the order of the AO & the Ld.CIT(A) was l…

PADMA, L/H OF S.SHANMUGAM (LATE),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1104/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: 25.09.2017

…cquisition of the property and the same was liable to be considered when computing the capital gains in respect of the said properties. It was a submission that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Shri R.M.Arunachalam reported in 227 ITR 222 the payment made for the purpose of clearing of the mortgage created by the assessee’s father on the said properties were to be considered as a cost of improvement in respect of the said properties so as to perfect the title of the property inherited by the assessee. It was a submission that consequently the order of the AO & the Ld.CIT(A) was l…

ITO, CHENNAI vs. SRI V.PITCHAMUTHU, CHENNAI

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

ITA 78/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.78/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Shri V. Pitchamuthu, No.35, 2Nd Avenue, Indira Nagar, Business Ward Iv(3), V. Chennai. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Ancpp 0501 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

…ile computing the capital gain. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the sale consideration of `6,75,00,000/- was utilized for repayment of outstanding loan. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in R.M. Arunachalam v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 222. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. From the order of the assessment it appears the assessee’s son, who is a non- resident Indian, purchased the property on 07.12.2005 for a total 4 I.T.A. No.78/Mds/13 consideration of `1,69,00,000/- by obtaining loan of `1,39,00,0…

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 1216 & 2106/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of 41, Periasamy Road (East), v. Income-tax / The DCIT, R.S.Puram, Company Circle-IV(2), Coimbatore-641002. Coimbatore. PAN AAKCS7439J (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by : Shri R.…

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 1216 & 2106/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of 41, Periasamy Road (East), v. Income-tax / The DCIT, R.S.Puram, Company Circle-IV(2), Coimbatore-641002. Coimbatore. PAN AAKCS7439J (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by : Shri R.…

PRALAD DAS MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 5861/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kambleay: 2007-08 A N D Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P.D.Mittal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.R
Section 24Section 55(2)

…ially the interest expenditure incurred on funds borrowed for cost of improvement of the property is allowable u/s 24(b) of the Act. (i) Shri Shyam Gopal in ITA 4894/Del/2004 Delhi E Bench of the ITAT order dt.November, 2006. (ii) RM Arunachalam vs. CIT (SC) 227 ITR 222 (iii) CIT vs. Daksha Raman Lal (Gujarat) 197 ITR 123 judgement dt.Feb.25, 1992 6.1. The Ld.Sr.D.R. submitted that, the valuation of the property in the gift deed was only Rs.47,62,000/- and that the assessee has not lead any evidence in support of his claim that depressing factors were taken into consideration while fixing the value of the prope…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2