CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: adverting to the merits, it is necessary to record that Ground No. 1 raised in the cross-objection was expressly stated to be not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the cross-objection is dismissed as not pressed. The adjudication hereinafter is, therefore, confined exclusively to Ground No. 2 of the cross- objection, which pertains to the allowability of interest expenditure under section 57 of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, th

…loans of Rs. 2,46,33,261 against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…loans of Rs. 2,46,33,261 against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

…loans of Rs. 2,46,33,261 against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

…loans of Rs. 2,46,33,261 against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PRATIMA HITESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue in A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

…loans of Rs. 2,46,33,261 against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the Interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. PRATIMA HITESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue in A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

…loans of Rs. 2,46,33,261 against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the Interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. PRATIMA HITESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue in A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

…loans of Rs. 2,46,33,261 against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the Interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

PRATIMA HITESH MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 1992-1993 Pratima Hitesh Mehta Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 32, Madhuli Apartment, Income-Tax, Cc -4(1), 3Rd Floor, Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai - 400018 [Pan: Abnpm8226G] Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh, Advocates Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel (Special Counsel For Dept.) Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-52, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070774879(1), Dated 29.11.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Cc-4(1), Mumbai, U/S. 144 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 19.07.2024 For Assessment Year 1992-93. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Partly Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act Dated 19.07.2024. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Which Is Time Barred & Hence Void.

…loans of Rs. 2,46,33,261 against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the Interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (ERSTWHILE DCIT-31, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

…loans of Rs. 2,46,33,261 against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

GROWMORE LEASING AND INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (ERSTWHILE DCIT-31, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

…loans of Rs. 2,46,33,261 against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

SUDHIR S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CC-4(1) (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CC -31), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed

…ns of Rs.2,46,33,261\nagainst the income under the head \"income from other sources\". It is evident from the record\nthat the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High\nCourt in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support\nthe conclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of\nmaking or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The\nrelevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as\nrelied upon in the impugned order, are as u…

RASILA S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), (ERSTWHILE ACIT, CC-23), MUMBAI

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

…ns of Rs.2,46,33,261\nagainst the income under the head \"income from other sources\". It is evident from the record\nthat the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High\nCourt in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the\nconclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making\nor earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant\nfindings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in\nthe impugned order, are as u…

RASILA S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

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

…ns of Rs.2,46,33,261\nagainst the income under the head \"income from other sources\". It is evident from the record\nthat the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High\nCourt in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the\nconclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making\nor earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant\nfindings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in\nthe impugned order, are as u…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN.CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs. SMT. RASILA S. MEHTA, MUMBAI

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

…ns of Rs.2,46,33,261\nagainst the income under the head \"income from other sources\". It is evident from the record\nthat the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High\nCourt in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the\nconclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making\nor earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant\nfindings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in\nthe impugned order, are as u…

SUDHIR S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

…ns of Rs.2,46,33,261 against the income under the head \"income from other\nsources\". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon\nthe decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J.\nKapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless\nthe interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning\ndividend income, no deduction is possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant\nfindings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied\nupon in the impugned order, are as u…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN.CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SUDHIR SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

…ns of Rs.2,46,33,261 against the income under the head \"income from other\nsources\". It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon\nthe decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J.\nKapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless\nthe interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning\ndividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant\nfindings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied\nupon in the impugned order, are as u…

DEEPIKA A. MEHTA,MUMBI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.379/मुं/2023 (नि.व. 1992-93) Ιτα No.379/Mum/2023 (A.Y.1992-93) Smt. Deepika A Mehta 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan: Abnpm8231D अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cen.Circle-4(1), Mumbai-400 021 प्रतिवादी/Respondent आ.अ.सं. 1178/मुं/2023 (नि.व. 1992-93)

…Rs. 2, 46, 33,261/- against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned Ld. CIT (A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT_v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income. Emphasis thus appears to be on the object or purpose of incurring of the expenditure. The exclusive object of incurring the expenditure has to be the making or earning of the dividend income. Th…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN-CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs. SMT. DEEPIKA A. MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.379/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 1992-93) Smt. Deepika A Mehta 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Abnpm8231D बनाम Vs.

…Rs. 2, 46, 33,261/- against the income under the head "income from other sources". It is evident from the record that the learned Ld. CIT (A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the 13 ITA No. 379 & 1178/MUM/2023 (A.Y 1992-93.) Smt. Deepika A Mehta Vs. DCIT Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court i…

SMT. JYOTI H MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaljyoti H. Mehta 32, Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Floor, Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan: Abnpm8233B ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(1) R. No. 1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai ..... Respondent

…Rs. 2, 46, 33,261/- against the income under the head “income from other sources”. It is evident from the record that the learned Ld. CIT (A) placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Jagmohandas J. Kapadia, [1966] 61 ITR 663 (Bom.), in order to support the conclusion that unless the interest expenditure was incurred solely for the purposes of making or earning dividend income, no deduction as possible under section 57 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision, as relied upon in the impugned order, are as under…

PRATIMA HITESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the present cross-appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.416/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 1992–93) Pratima Hitesh Mehta 32, Madhuli Apartment, 3rd Floor ……………. Appellant Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 PAN – ABNPM8226G v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle–4(1), Mumbai ITA no.1180/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 1992–93) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–4(1), Mumbai v/s Pratima Hitesh Mehta 32, Madhuli Apartment, 3rd Floor …………….Respondent Dr. A.B. Road, Worli…