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

DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

ITA 1202/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-15(2)(1) M/S Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 357, 3Rd Floor, A-1, Ashian Sector-17, Vashi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 705 Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaack3955F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopati, D.RFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…item of deduction. That, the utilization of the capital was irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating the claim for deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act [see judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs. 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…

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

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

ITA 2348/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)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 a…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -7(3), Mumbai vs. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2147/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)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 a…

Neelkanth Palm Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3505/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3505/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010-11) M/s Neelkanth Palm Realty The Dy. Commissioner of Fine House, Anandji Lane, 5 th Income Tax, Circle 15(3), Floor, M.G. Road, Mumbai Vs. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400 077 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. AAEFN5224B अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Josh…

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

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…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 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…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…

Horizon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC 38, (Presently DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 5812/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5812/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) In The Matter Of: बनधम/ Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Acit-Cc 38 (Presently Dcit., Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Vs. Air India Building, Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai- Skil House, 209 Bank 400021. Street Cross Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400023. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach9240E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)(Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Views Of The Ao By Confirming The Disallowance In Respect Of Interest Paid Amounting To Rs.4,00,55,791/- 2. On The Facts & In The Circusmtances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit-(A) Has Erred In Directing The Ao To Compute The Disallowance U/S 14A R.W.R 8D Of The I.T. Act, In Respect Of Shares/Investment In Mutual Funds, Which Have Yielded Dividends.”

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…unds. This precise argument has been repelled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Samachar Ltd. (supra) wherein reliance was placed on the following observations in its earlier judgment in the case of Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs. CIT, 34 ITR 265 (Bom.) :- “Where the assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, all that the assessee has to show is that the capital which was borrowed was used for the purposes of the business of the assessee in the relevant year of account. It does not matter whether the capital is borrowed in…

M/S. Prestige Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 4772/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Arun Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 57

…e utilization of the capital was irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating the claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act (See judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dyeing and Printing Works v. CIT, Bombay City-II, reported in 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…

M/S Prestige Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 3507/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Arun Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 57

…e utilization of the capital was irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating the claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act (See judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dyeing and Printing Works v. CIT, Bombay City-II, reported in 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…

M/S Mittaso Projects Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 3506/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Arun Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 57

…e utilization of the capital was irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating the claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act (See judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dyeing and Printing Works v. CIT, Bombay City-II, reported in 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…

Horizon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 356/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…unds. This precise argument has been repelled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Samachar Ltd. (supra) wherein reliance was placed on the following observations in its earlier judgment in the case of Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs. CIT, 34 ITR 265 (Bom.) :- “Where the assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, all that the assessee has to show is that the capital which was borrowed was used for the purposes of the business of the assessee in the relevant year of account. It does not matter whether the capital is borrowed i…

M/S Khoday India Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1056/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Sukumar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 14A

…the borrowed capital for the purpose of business. If that is found (to be) true, then, one need not examine further as to whether the asset purchased from borrowed capital has been in fact used by the assessee.—Calico& Dyeing and Printing Works vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265 (Bom) : TC15R.907 followed; Challapali Sugar Ltd. vs. CIT 1974 CTR (SC) 309 : (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC) distinguished.” (iv) Yet another judgment, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in C.T.Desai v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 240 (Kar) ruled that – “12. Sec. 36(1)(iii) of the Act is analogous to s. 5(e) of the Madras Act and s. 10(2)(iii) and (iv) of the…

Seto Teknolog P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4859/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Banger -CIT
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…est for borrowing would be allowed even if borrowed fund is utilized for acquiring plant and machinery or land and building for use in business. Reference can be made to jurisdictional high Court judgment in the case of Calico Dyeing & Printing Works Vs. CIT, 34 ITR 265. 12. In view of the above legal background, the question which survives for our consideration is whether on facts it can be said that money was borrowed for the purpose of business. Admittedly Trumac’ was a joint venture of assessee and Maftlal Group of companies. In its reply to show cause notice, the assessee had stated that promoters of the ass…

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)

…paid in the post acquisition period to ICICI Bank. Such payments of interest are allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT. Act and the issue is settled as in the case of Challapalli Sugar ltd. Vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167(SC) and Calico dyeing Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265 (Bombay). It seems that the main contention of the Assessing officer has been the comment in the schedule 16 Clause 5 of the notes on accounts of Annual financial Statement which stated :- “Interest on borrowing for acquisition of tea estates now held by the company by virtue of amalgamation of companies as approved by the Hon’ble high Court at Ca…

Meerut Development Authority, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Meerut

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5457/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5455 to 5457/Del/2010 Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 Meerut Development Authority, Vs. Addl.CIT, CA Anupam Sharma, Range-1, 16, Hans Plaza, Meerut. Opp. Amarpali Cinema, Garh Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAALM0124D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Department By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2016 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: All these appeals are filed by the…

Meerut Development Authority, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Meerut

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5455/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5455 to 5457/Del/2010 Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 Meerut Development Authority, Vs. Addl.CIT, CA Anupam Sharma, Range-1, 16, Hans Plaza, Meerut. Opp. Amarpali Cinema, Garh Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAALM0124D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Department By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2016 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: All these appeals are filed by the…

Ashish Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Range 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, order of the CIT(Appeals) does not call for interference

ITA 1566/MUM/2011[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Toprani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, D.R

…of said project”. Relying on the another judgment 9 ITA No.310/M/2012, ITA No.1566/M/2011, ITA No.433/M/2012, ITA No.6658/M/2013 & ITA No.7317/M/2013 M/s. Ashish Builders Pvt. Ltd of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dyeing and Printing Works 34 ITR 265 Bombay, Hon’ble Bombay High Court concluded that the interest expenditure relating to the borrowed capital is allowable under section 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…

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

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…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 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…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…

E-City Investments & Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings DCIT, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(OSD), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAACE8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shr…