What is CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan authority for?

Interest expenditure is allocable to a unit based on the actual utilization of borrowed funds, not on an ad-hoc basis without establishing a nexus.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (343 ITR 161), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961 - Sections 14A, Section 1962 - Rule 8D, Section 22, Section 23, Section 23(1)(c).

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (343 ITR 161)

Assistant Commissoner of Income Tax-Circle-3.3.1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities Power Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4766/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal / Shri Nimesh Vora /For Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal (CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

…r than that on ECB was not allocable to the SEZ unit. The allocation of interest expenditure is to be made on the basis of actual utilization of the borrowed funds. In support, the assessee relied on the following decisions: CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 161 (Bom) (HC) Nyati Builders (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2014] 65 SOT 112 (Pune) (ITAT) ACIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2019] ITA No. 1654/Mum/2016 (Mum) (ITAT) 6.6 In the course of hearing before us, the ld. DR could not controvert the facts stated above or the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the actual utilization of borrowings and the allo…

Shri Trimbakeshwar De vs. Than Trust, Nashikvs.CIT (Exemption) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1051/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1051/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…order passed by the AO is both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. If one of the two conditions is not satisfied, the power to revise is ousted. Further, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 161 (Bom.) considered this issue, after taking note of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. 243 ITR 83. Their Lordships in Hindustan Lever Ltd. ( supra) held as under :- 10 Shri Trimbakeshwar Devsthan Trust “As regards the order being prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the judgment in Malabar Industrial Company adve…

M/S. Shri Rang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 665/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68

…ITA No.665/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Shri Rang Infrastructure Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Shyamvan, Gandhinagar Circle, B/h. Vrundavan Hotel, Gandhinagar. Koba Circle, Vs. Post: Koba Dist. Gandhinagar – 382 007 Gujarat. [PAN – AAICS 9126 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2024 Date of Pr…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…in this regard, is placed on the following decisions, wherein the Tribunal had deleted ad-hoc allocation of interest expenditure made by the assessing officer, without establishing nexus of borrowed funds with the eligible unit: • CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.: 343 ITR 161 (Born. HC) • Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA No.3497and 3374/Del/l0 (Del Trib.) • ACIT v. Heela foam Ltd.: ITA No.: ITA No. 3832/DELl2009 (Del Trib.) • Wockhardt Limited v. ACIT: ITA No. 3991/Mum/2005, 6323/Mum/2010 (Mum. Trib.) • ACIT vs Glenrnark Pharmaceutical Ltd: ITA No. 1654/Mum/2016 (Mum. Trib.) Specific reliance in this regard, is plac…

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

…ITA No.20/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, The Deputy Commissioner of C/o. M.S. Chhajed & Co., Income Tax, “Kamal Shanti”, Circle – 7(1), Beside Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad. Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Vs. Naranpura, Ahmedabad – 380 014. [PAN – ANFPM 6538 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hem Chhajed, AR (VH) Revenue by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.07.2024 Date of Prono…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…- Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del) - Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) - CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Born). 5.12.1 In connection wit the submissio…