CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah

238 ITR 777High Court1999#3171 most cited

What is CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah authority for?

Expenditure incurred to acquire controlling interest in a company, rather than to earn dividend income, is not allowable as a deduction under section 57(iii) as it is in the nature of capital expenditure.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah · 238 ITR 777 · Section 57(iii) · Section 36(1)(iii) · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · controlling interest · dividend income · interest expenditure · disallowance of interest

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57(iii)Section 115JBSection 1961: Section 10(34)

Issues it is cited on

section 57(iii)section 36(1)(iii)revenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 36(1)section 36section 115jbsection 14aescapement of incomesection 37section 37(1)draft assessment order

Judgments citing CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3555/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…trolling AY 2008-09 interest and management of the said company, interest expenditure u/s. 57(iii) is not allowable. For this he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Amritaben R. Shah [1999] 238 ITR 777 (Bom). He thus, concluded by taking an adverse view to make the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 518,75,84,534/- and added it to the total income of the assessee. 11. It is important to take note of the financing structure of the transaction undertaken by the assessee for acquiring Corus during the year. From the material on…

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3294/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…trolling AY 2008-09 interest and management of the said company, interest expenditure u/s. 57(iii) is not allowable. For this he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Amritaben R. Shah [1999] 238 ITR 777 (Bom). He thus, concluded by taking an adverse view to make the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 518,75,84,534/- and added it to the total income of the assessee. 11. It is important to take note of the financing structure of the transaction undertaken by the assessee for acquiring Corus during the year. From the material on…

Tata Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T., Range-2(3), Mumbai

ITA 3676/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2005-06
For Respondent: Shri P.C Chhottary
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14A

…so placed on the following judgments/decisions: (a) Everplus Securities & Finance Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax: 2006 285 ITR 112 (Delhi); (b) ACIT Range 10(1) Vs Citicorp Finance India Limited: 2008 300 ITR 398 (Mumbai)' (c) CIT Vs. Amrita Ben R Shah: 238 ITR 777; and (d) CIT Vs KS Venkatasubbiah Reddiar: 221 ITR 18. 4.7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions 6 and perused the material on record including the various judicial precedents cited by both the sides. 4.8. On perusal of the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2005-06, we find that the Assessing Officer had made dis…

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…iture incurred for earning tax exempt income, merely because he did not expressly record his dissatisfaction about assessee's calculation, his conclusion could not be rejected. 9.6. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah [1999] 238 ITR 777 considered the facts where, admittedly, shares in a company were purchased by the assessee for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company and not for earning dividend, it was held as under :- "Held that in order to get deduction under s. 57(iii), the expenditure should be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making…

Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 370/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…e u/s 57(iii) only if the investment had been made for the purpose of earning dividend income. In support of this proposition, the Ld. DRP placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Amritaben R. Shaw (238 ITR 777) and held that the expenditure incurred for acquiring controlling interest in the company is not allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. DRP also confirmed the disallowance of interest expenditure incurred on ECB Loan. However, in the final assessment order passed for assessment year 2012-13, the A.O. disallowed the in…

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

…e u/s 57(iii) only if the investment had been made for the purpose of earning dividend income. In support of this proposition, the Ld. DRP placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Amritaben R. Shaw (238 ITR 777) and held that the expenditure incurred for acquiring controlling interest in the company is not allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. DRP also confirmed the disallowance of interest expenditure incurred on ECB Loan. However, in the final assessment order passed for assessment year 2012-13, the A.O. disallowed the in…

M/S. Bitwise Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 756/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.756/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bitwise Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Bitwise World, Off International Vs Convention Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune – 411 016. Pan: Aaacb 4239 K Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune, Dated 15.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-1, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Addition U/S.36(1)(Iii) Of The Ita, 1961 Of Rs.69,51,455/- Made By Learned Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune(Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao). 2. The Learned Cit(A)-1 & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, Share Purchase Transaction For Which Loan Was Availed Was A Business Transaction I.E. After Buying Shares, Bitwise Inc., Usa, Became 100% Subsidiary Of The Appellant Company. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-1 & The Learned Ao Further Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That Appellant Company Benefitted From Share Purchase Transaction In Terms Of Direct Control Over Bitwise Inc., Usa & Assurance As To Getting Business In Future Years.

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…during the assessment proceedings. The AO disallowed the interest. Relevant part of the assessment order is as under: “In support of revenue’s case reliance is placed on the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah [1998] 238 ITR 777 1 (Bom.) and of Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 464 in which it has been held that interest on loan taken for purchasing shares for acquiring controlling interest in the company cannot be held to be expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income from dividend and deduction under sect…

Shikhar Development Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-43(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 131/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 143(3)Section 36

…Ltd was taken to support livelihood and Micro Finance related activities. However, the appellant company diverted the funds for investment in Sikhar Micro Finance Pvt Ltd to buy its equity shares. It has been held in the case of CIT Vs Amritaben R. Shah (Bom) 238 ITR 777 that when the assessee indulged in Purchase of shares with a view to acquire controlling interest in a company, then the Interest on loan taken to purchase shares was not deductible u/s 36(l)(iii), Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial position discussed above, I do not find any reason to interfere with t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1663/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…s and the loans advances was shown at Rs.187.70 crores. Thus, it is clear that the funds borrowed from bank were utilized for the purpose of investment in equity shares and interest free loans and advances. As held in the case of CIT Vs Amritaben R.Shah (Bom) 238 ITR 777, the interest paid on borrowed capital for purchase of shares is not allowable. Thus, it is clear that the assessee invested the monies borrowed from banks to earn exempt income by investing in equity shares. However, the A.R submitted that the interest was earned on the deposits pledged for business purpose hence if the financial charges are dis…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…s and the loans advances was shown at Rs.187.70 crores. Thus, it is clear that the funds borrowed from bank were utilized for the purpose of investment in equity shares and interest free loans and advances. As held in the case of CIT Vs Amritaben R.Shah (Bom) 238 ITR 777, the interest paid on borrowed capital for purchase of shares is not allowable. Thus, it is clear that the assessee invested the monies borrowed from banks to earn exempt income by investing in equity shares. However, the A.R submitted that the interest was earned on the deposits pledged for business purpose hence if the financial charges are dis…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited., Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1120/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…s and the loans advances was shown at Rs.187.70 crores. Thus, it is clear that the funds borrowed from bank were utilized for the purpose of investment in equity shares and interest free loans and advances. As held in the case of CIT Vs Amritaben R.Shah (Bom) 238 ITR 777, the interest paid on borrowed capital for purchase of shares is not allowable. Thus, it is clear that the assessee invested the monies borrowed from banks to earn exempt income by investing in equity shares. However, the A.R submitted that the interest was earned on the deposits pledged for business purpose hence if the financial charges are dis…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1745/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…s and the loans advances was shown at Rs.187.70 crores. Thus, it is clear that the funds borrowed from bank were utilized for the purpose of investment in equity shares and interest free loans and advances. As held in the case of CIT Vs Amritaben R.Shah (Bom) 238 ITR 777, the interest paid on borrowed capital for purchase of shares is not allowable. Thus, it is clear that the assessee invested the monies borrowed from banks to earn exempt income by investing in equity shares. However, the A.R submitted that the interest was earned on the deposits pledged for business purpose hence if the financial charges are dis…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…e u/s 57(iii) only if the investment had been made for the purpose of earning dividend income. In support of this proposition, the Ld. DRP placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Amritaben R. Shaw (238 ITR 777) and held that the expenditure incurred for acquiring controlling interest in the company is not allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. DRP also confirmed the disallowance of interest expenditure incurred on ECB Loan. However, in the final assessment order passed for assessment year 2012-13, the A.O. disallowed the in…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…e u/s 57(iii) only if the investment had been made for the purpose of earning dividend income. In support of this proposition, the Ld. DRP placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Amritaben R. Shaw (238 ITR 777) and held that the expenditure incurred for acquiring controlling interest in the company is not allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. DRP also confirmed the disallowance of interest expenditure incurred on ECB Loan. However, in the final assessment order passed for assessment year 2012-13, the A.O. disallowed the in…

Shri Kailash Chand Soni C/O- S.L. Poddar & Company E-3A, Kanti Chandra Raod, Bani Park, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-5, Jaipur, Circle-5

In the result, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 960/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Singh (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 57

…es. The AO also observed that the loans were utilized for acquiring controlling interest in M/s. SimDiam P. Ltd and therefore the interest is not allowable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Amritaben R. Shah" 238 ITR 777. It is to be noted that the assessee has borrowed fund and invested the same by either giving loan or investment in the shares of the group concern as well as shares of the other listed companies from which it could earn interest income, dividend income and capital gain on sale of such shares. The investment in the shares of M/s. SimDiam P. Ltd w…

Mani Market Creators Limited, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1904/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2019AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…including interest incurred for acquiring controlling interest is not deductible. In this regard reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in the cases of Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2008) 20 SOT 40 (Mum.) and CIT Vs. Smt. Amritaben R. Shah (1999) 238 ITR 777 (Bom.), wherein it was held that interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds utilized in investment of shares of subsidiary company for acquiring controlling interest could not be allowed as the same was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Accordingly, I hold that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed inte…

S.C.Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 24(3), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 2992/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S S C Brothers, Acit Circle-24(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aarfs6197F Appellant Respondent M/S S C Brothers, Acit Circle-24(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aarfs6197F Appellant Respondent M/S S C Brothers, Acit Circle-31(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aarfs6197F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivram Sr Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Advocate Respondent By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram Sr Advocate with Ms. Neelam Jadhav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 37

…vities which can be termed as money lending business. In support of his submission, the ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT ITA No. 2992 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers v. Amritaben R. Shah (238 ITR 777) (Bom), decision of Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers vs. CIT (227 ITR 172 (SC). 5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The Assessing Officer while framing assessment noted that the assessee claimed interest income as ‘Business Income’ instead o…

Parikshit Mandir Sial, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)- 4(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri, G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 377/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri. Parikshit Mandir Sial Ito (I.T)-4(2)(2), Mumbai 501, Sea Goddess Green Field Air India Building., Nariman बिधम/ Estate, A.B Nair Road, Opp. Juhu Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Post Office, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 057. स्थामीरेखासं./जीआइआयसं ./ Pan/Gir No. Avjps5311E (अऩीराथी/Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri.Reepal Tralashawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 57

…n order to fortify his aforesaid contention relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i). CIT Vs. V.P Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC) (ii). Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna Bs. Addl. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 176 (SC) (iii). CIT Vs. Amritaben R. Shah (1999) 238 ITR 777 (Bom) (iv). Saluja Farms Vs. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 172 (Del) The ld. D.R taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that the Hon‟ble Courts in the aforementioned cases involving identical facts, had concluded that the interest expenditure incurred on loans (against the security of FDR) was not to be allowed as a deduction u…

Padamshi Madan Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3999/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Padamshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakps5721L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Padamshi Madan Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Alqps5159R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vishwas V. Mehendale, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

…s.8,11,868/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ is not properly disallowed and hence the same may be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC) and CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah (1999) 238 ITR 777 (Bom) and submits that the issue in the present case be decided in favour of the revenue in view of the ratio laid down in the above cases. The Ld. DR thus supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We begin with the decisions relied on by the Ld. counsel of th…

Vipul Padamshi Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3998/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Padamshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakps5721L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Padamshi Madan Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Alqps5159R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vishwas V. Mehendale, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

…s.8,11,868/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ is not properly disallowed and hence the same may be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC) and CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah (1999) 238 ITR 777 (Bom) and submits that the issue in the present case be decided in favour of the revenue in view of the ratio laid down in the above cases. The Ld. DR thus supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We begin with the decisions relied on by the Ld. counsel of th…