How many judgments cite CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd.?

51 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. (74 ITR 723), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 143(3A), Section 143(3B), Section 246A, Section 250, Section 253.

CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd.

74 ITR 723High Court1969#2259 most cited

What is CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee has mixed funds from both own sources and borrowings in a cash credit account, the debit balance is presumed to have been met from the company's own funds. This principle is applied to assess the allowability of interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) for capital borrowed for business purposes.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. · 74 ITR 723 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest deduction · borrowed capital · own funds · mixed funds · cash credit account · presumption of funds · diversion of funds

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 246A Section 250 Section 253 Section 36(1)(iii)Section 801A(iv)

Issues it is cited on

section 80la section 86 section 80ib(4)section 80l section 10(2)(xv)section 80ia(4)(i)section 167b section 167 section 10(2)legal expenses section 199 clarificatory amendment

Judgments citing CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd.

Bhansali Bright Baras P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Acit-5(1), Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 150, Madhav Bhavan, Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcb1544N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Darshak Shah Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 11/01/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…it is not necessary to show for the purposes of deduction under clause (iii) that the money borrowed was utilized for a particular branch of assessee’s business. Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Bombay Samachar Ltd 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) and Amma Bai Hajee Issa vs CIT 51 ITR 835 (Mad.) 2.6. The expression “for the purposes on business” is wider in scope than “for the purposes of earning income” (Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT (118 ITR 200)(SC) and L.M. Thappar vs CIT 173 ITR 577 (Cal.). Interest on borrowal is allowable as deduction only when the borrowals are used for the purp…

Rajendra H Salot, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4050/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Rajendra H. Salot, Ito-15(1)(4), 18, Maheswar Prakash, Mumbai बनाम/ Building No.1, Jain Derasar Vs. Lane, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aalps6170L

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40

…it is not necessary to show for the purposes of deduction under clause (iii) that the money borrowed was utilized for a particular branch of assessee’s business. Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Bombay Samachar Lted 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) and Amma Bai Hajee Issa vs CIT 51 ITR 835 (Mad.) 3.2. The expression “for the purposes on business” is wider in scope than “for the purposes of earning income” (Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT (118 ITR 200)(SC) and L.M. Thappar vs CIT 173 ITR 577 (Cal.). Interest on borrowal is allowable as deduction only when the borrowals are used for 5 Rajend…

Sanjay Trade Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee firm in ITA N0

ITA 4969/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8271/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4969/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…firm submitted that the loan was forwarded for commercial expediency out of the current account, ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and not from the overdraft. The assessee firm relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd., 74 ITR 723(Bom. HC) and submitted that the interest should be allowed as all the conditions have been met as per section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The A.O. rejected the contentions of the assessee firm holding that assessee firm has not shown any unsecured loan or over draft facility from the ING Vysya Bank in the details filed. The capital of the assessee firm…

Sanjay Trade Corpn, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. 13(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee firm in ITA N0

ITA 8271/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

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)

…ng decisions:- i. Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) ii. Addl. CIT vs Laxmi Agents Pvt. ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 227 (Guj.) iii. Marolia & Sons vs CIT (129 ITR 475)(All.) iv. Regal Theater vs CIT (225 ITR 205)(Del.) v. CIT vs Bombay Samachar Ltd. (74 ITR 723)(Bom.), vi. Ramkishan Oil Mills vs CIT (56 ITR 186)(MP) 33 E-City Investment & Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.8382/Mum/11 vii. Calico Dyeing and Printing Works vs CIT (34 ITR 265)(Bom.) 2.8. For making a disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act essentially, there has to be a finding that the borrowed money were utilized for non-business purpose…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 25, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6605/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 80Section 80ISection 80l

…. The sale proceeds of the appellant are deposited in the cash credit account and the debit balance are presumed to have been company's own funds and not from borrowed funds. The appellant relies on the following decisions: • ACIT vs. Bombay Samachar Limited 74 ITR 723 (Born). • Wimco Seedlings Ltd. vs. OCIT 107 ITO 267 (Del.) It was further pointed out that the facts of following decisions are distinguishable from the facts of the appellant's case: & CO No.9/15 • ACIT v. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. 108 ITD 457 • Everplus Securities & Finance Ltd. v. DCIT 101 ITD 151 • DCIT v. SG Investments & industries Ltd.…

M/S Embassy Development Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/465/2009HC Karnataka08 Sept 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 43D

…double taxation and sought for setting aside the same. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: (1) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) (S.A.BUILDERS LTD. v/s COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND ANOTHER; (2) (1969) 74 ITR 723 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY II v/s BOMBAY SAMACHAR LTD., BOMBAY); (3) (1979) 118 ITR 200 (MADHAV PRASAD JATIA v/s COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P.); (4) (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v/s CORE HEALT…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Manickbag Automobiles Pvt., Ltd

ITA/100120/2014HC Karnataka04 Aug 2015

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

Section 12Section 260ASection 37Section 40

…h of them should have been employed when the Court is deciding a question under Section 12 (2) of the Income Tax Act.” 4. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd., Bombay, [74 ITR 723 (1969)] wherein it is held thus: “ If the capital is used in the year of account and the use is for the purpose of the business of the assessee, it is immaterial whether the user of the capital actually yielded profit or not and it is not open to the department to reject the claim of the assessee in respect of the interest paid on the capital mere…

P.Sundararajan, Avanashi vs. DCIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1666/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1666/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…‘आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी ’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1666/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007) R. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner of No.39-A, Extension Street, Vs Income Tax, Kaikattipudur, Company Circle, Avinashi 641 654 Tirupur [PAN: AGQPS 1345A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respon…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others

ITTA/210/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Gautam Motors

ITA/496/2006HC Delhi19 Jul 2010

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Which Was Partly Allowed. Not Fully Satisfied With The Decision Of The Cit(A), The Assessee Approached The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Department Also Filed Cross-Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Which Were Deleted

Section 260A

…e had its own ample resources at its disposal cannot negate the deduction in respect of the interest paid on borrowed funds. It has been held by the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City II vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd., Bombay [1969] 74 ITR 723 that the fact that an assessee had ample resources at its disposal and need not have borrowed is not a relevant matter for consideration. The relevant observations from the said judgment may be reproduced: “The view that if the assessee had collected the outstandings which were due to from others, it would have been able to reduce its in…