Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT

34 ITR 265High Court1958#1796 most cited

What is Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT authority for?

For claiming a deduction of interest paid on borrowed capital under Section 36(1)(iii), an assessee must show that the capital was used for business purposes; the nature of the asset acquired (revenue or capital) with such capital is irrelevant.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT · 34 ITR 265 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest on borrowed capital deduction · business purpose · revenue asset · capital asset · loan utilization · income tax deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 68Section 10(2)(iii)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(l)(iii)section 36(l)project completion methodsection 10(2)percentage completion methodsection 36(1)(iii)section 245dsection 43(1)put to usemercantile system of accountingsection 36(1)section 36

Judgments citing Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…the money, i.e., capital, must have been borrowed by the assessee; secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business; and, thirdly, the assessee must have paid interest on the borrowed amount [See : Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 265 (Bom.). All that is germane is : whether the borrowing was, or was not, for the purpose of business. The expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in section 36(1)(iii) indicates that once the test of "for the purpose of business" is satisfied in respect of the capital borrowed, the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 36…

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…the money, i.e., capital, must have been borrowed by the assessee; secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business; and, thirdly, the assessee must have paid interest on the borrowed amount [See : Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 265 (Bom.). All that is germane is : whether the borrowing was, or was not, for the purpose of business. The expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in section 36(1)(iii) indicates that once the test of "for the purpose of business" is satisfied in respect of the capital borrowed, the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 36…

Lodha Developers Ltd(Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2349/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blemacrotech Developers Limited V. Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. Macrotech Developers Limited Room No. 655, 6Th Floor {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Macrotech Developers Limited v. DCIT – Central Circle – 7(3) {erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} Room No. 655, 6th Floor 412, 4th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AAACL1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT – Central Circle – 7(3) v. Macrotech Developers Limited Room No. 655, 6th Floor {erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} 412, 4th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Ch…

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…the money, i.e., capital, must have been borrowed by the assessee; secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business; and, thirdly, the assessee must have paid interest on the borrowed amount [See : Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 265 (Bom.). All that is germane is : whether the borrowing was, or was not, for the purpose of business. The expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in section 36(1)(iii) indicates that once the test of "for the purpose of business" is satisfied in respect of the capital borrowed, the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 36…

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Cowtown Land Development Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4053/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 36(1)(iii)

…assessee was entitled to deduction under section 36(l)(iii) of the Act in respect of the interest on the loan obtained for execution of said project." Relying on the another judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dying and Printing Works 34 ITR 265 Bombay, Hon'ble Bombay High Court concluded that the interest expenditure relating to the borrowed capital is allowable u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act. The relevant lines from the para 4 reads as under; M/s Cowtown Land Development Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. "that, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(l)(iii) of the Act the nature of expe…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

ITA 794/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…assessee was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of the interest on the loan obtained for execution of said project." Relying on the another judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dying and Printing Works 34 ITR 265 Bombay, Hon'ble Bombay High Court concluded that the interest expenditure relating to the borrowed capital is allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The relevant lines from the para 4 reads as under; "that, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of expense - whether the expenditure was on capital ac…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

ITA 793/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…assessee was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of the interest on the loan obtained for execution of said project." Relying on the another judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dying and Printing Works 34 ITR 265 Bombay, Hon'ble Bombay High Court concluded that the interest expenditure relating to the borrowed capital is allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The relevant lines from the para 4 reads as under; "that, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of expense - whether the expenditure was on capital ac…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

ITA 792/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…assessee was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of the interest on the loan obtained for execution of said project." Relying on the another judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dying and Printing Works 34 ITR 265 Bombay, Hon'ble Bombay High Court concluded that the interest expenditure relating to the borrowed capital is allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The relevant lines from the para 4 reads as under; "that, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of expense - whether the expenditure was on capital ac…

Asstt. CIT (OSD) - CC -7 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Lodha Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S Shri Rifaur Rahamn & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – Cc-7(3) Vs. Macrotech Developers Room No. 655, 6Th Ltd (Successor To Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bellissimo Crown Mk Road, Mumbai – Buildmart Pvt Ltd) 400020. (Earlier Known As Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent Macrotech Developers Vs. Dcit – Cc-7(3) Ltd (Successor To Room No. 655, 6Th Bellissimo Crown Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Buildmart Pvt Ltd) Mk Road, Mumbai – (Earlier Known As 400020. Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…assessee was entitled to deduction under section 36(l)(iii) of the Act in respect of the interest on the loan obtained for execution of said project." Relying on the another judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dying and Printing Works 34 ITR 265 Bombay, Hon'ble Bombay High Court concluded that the interest expenditure relating to the borrowed capital is allowable u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act. The relevant lines from the para 4 reads as under; "that, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(l)(iii) of the Act the nature of expense 0- whether the expenditure was on capital…

DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Shriram Investments, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2232/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A

…of deduction. That the utilization of capital was irrelevant for the purpose of adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act. (see the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265. In that judgment, it has been laid down that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, all that the assessee had to show was that the capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in the relevant year of account and it did not matter whether the capital was borrowed in order to acquire a revenue asset or…

Indira Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 396/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…borrowed money to a subsidiary for some business purpose, the assessee would, ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans since the advance was given for commercial expediency. Further in Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265 (Bom.) it was held that if however the capital borrowed is not utilized for the purpose of the business. In CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Delhi), that no businessmen need be compelled to maximize his profit. The authorities should put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and consider what a prudent businessman would do. It…

Indira Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 395/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…borrowed money to a subsidiary for some business purpose, the assessee would, ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans since the advance was given for commercial expediency. Further in Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265 (Bom.) it was held that if however the capital borrowed is not utilized for the purpose of the business. In CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Delhi), that no businessmen need be compelled to maximize his profit. The authorities should put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and consider what a prudent businessman would do. It…

Indira Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 394/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…borrowed money to a subsidiary for some business purpose, the assessee would, ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans since the advance was given for commercial expediency. Further in Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265 (Bom.) it was held that if however the capital borrowed is not utilized for the purpose of the business. In CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Delhi), that no businessmen need be compelled to maximize his profit. The authorities should put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and consider what a prudent businessman would do. It…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4793/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 80I

…e on the capital borrowed by the assessee was an item of deduction. That, the utilization of the capital was irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act - Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 265 (Bom.). In that judgment, it has been laid down that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, all that the assessee had to show was that the capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in the relevant year of account and it did not matter whether the capital was borrowed in order to acquire a revenue as…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4187/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 80I

…e on the capital borrowed by the assessee was an item of deduction. That, the utilization of the capital was irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act - Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 265 (Bom.). In that judgment, it has been laid down that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, all that the assessee had to show was that the capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in the relevant year of account and it did not matter whether the capital was borrowed in order to acquire a revenue as…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4436/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…e on the capital borrowed by the assessee was an item of deduction. That, the utilization of the capital was irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act - Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 265 (Bom.). In that judgment, it has been laid down that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, all that the assessee had to show was that the capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in the relevant year of account and it did not matter whether the capital was borrowed in order to acquire a revenue as…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 4061/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…e on the capital borrowed by the assessee was an item of deduction. That, the utilization of the capital was irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act - Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 265 (Bom.). In that judgment, it has been laid down that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, all that the assessee had to show was that the capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in the relevant year of account and it did not matter whether the capital was borrowed in order to acquire a revenue as…

Enigma Construction Pvt. Ltd.(Now Merged With Keystone Rlators Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5242/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Enigma Construction Pvt. Dcit Central Circle-2(4) Ltd. (Now Merged With Income Tax Office, Old Vs. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd,) Cgo Building, Mumbai. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Junction W.E. Highway, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9090J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri V. Justin सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Enigma Construction Pvt. DCIT Central Circle-2(4) Ltd. (Now Merged with Income Tax Office, Old Vs. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd,) CGO Building, Mumbai. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Junction W.E. Highway, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCE9090J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue by: Shri V. Justin सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 03/03/2020 घो…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cornerstone Property Investments Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1083/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra. CIT DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1082 & 1083/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2013 – 14 & 2014 – 15 DCIT Central Circle 2 (2), M/s Cornerstone Property Investment (P) Ltd., No. 583, 9th Main Road, Bengaluru Vs. Off CMH Road, Indiranagar Road, Bengaluru - 560038 PAN : AACCC8744Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Sreenivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra. CIT DR Date of hearing : 30.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2020 O R D E R PER ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, A. M.: Both these appea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cornerstone Property Investments Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1082/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra. CIT DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1082 & 1083/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2013 – 14 & 2014 – 15 DCIT Central Circle 2 (2), M/s Cornerstone Property Investment (P) Ltd., No. 583, 9th Main Road, Bengaluru Vs. Off CMH Road, Indiranagar Road, Bengaluru - 560038 PAN : AACCC8744Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Sreenivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra. CIT DR Date of hearing : 30.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2020 O R D E R PER ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, A. M.: Both these appea…