CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia

61 ITR 663High Court1966#4704 most cited

What is CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia authority for?

Expenditure is deductible under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act only if it is incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning dividend income.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia · section 57 · section 57(iii) · dividend income · expenditure solely for earning dividend income · deduction for expenditure · income from other sources

Sections most often in play

Section 57Section 144Section 147Section 143(3)Section 268ASection 234DSection 251Section 254

Issues it is cited on

section 57(iii)proximate nexusright to receivesection 57section 268asection 142(2)audi alteram partemsection 234dsection 220(2)section 254section 220revision u/s 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cent -Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. Smt Pratima H. Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 1180/MUM/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 1992-93

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(2)Section 250Section 254

…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…

DCIT vs. M/S Fiza Developers & Infrastructer Pvt. Ltd

In the result, all the miscellaneous petitions are allowed

ITA 985/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 263Section 54FSection 57

…interest income from such deposits was from such deposits only and was incidental to and was the result of the same. The interest income was totally independent of the borrowings. As pointed out by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia [1966] 61 ITR 663 at page 669 in interpreting the corresponding section 12(2) of the 1922 Act relied on by the ITO also, the expenditure incurred must be for the purpose of making or earning the income; which is not the position in the present case. In examining the claim, the incongruities and hardship caused, cannot obviously blur our approach. From this it neces…

Arjun M Ranga, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 692/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 263Section 54FSection 57

…interest income from such deposits was from such deposits only and was incidental to and was the result of the same. The interest income was totally independent of the borrowings. As pointed out by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia [1966] 61 ITR 663 at page 669 in interpreting the corresponding section 12(2) of the 1922 Act relied on by the ITO also, the expenditure incurred must be for the purpose of making or earning the income; which is not the position in the present case. In examining the claim, the incongruities and hardship caused, cannot obviously blur our approach. From this it neces…

Guru Pavan Ranga, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 677/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 263Section 54FSection 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 676 & 677/Bang/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 1. Anirudh Murthy Ranga PAN: AFHPR 7516J Vs. The Principal Commissioner 2. Guru Pavan Ranga of Income Tax (Central), PAN: ABOPR 2108K Bengaluru. Both r/at Post Box No.52, # 1553, Vani Vilas Road, K.R. Mohalla, Mysuru – 570 004. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellants by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 01.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14…

Anirudh Murthy Ranga, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 676/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 263Section 54FSection 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 676 & 677/Bang/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 1. Anirudh Murthy Ranga PAN: AFHPR 7516J Vs. The Principal Commissioner 2. Guru Pavan Ranga of Income Tax (Central), PAN: ABOPR 2108K Bengaluru. Both r/at Post Box No.52, # 1553, Vani Vilas Road, K.R. Mohalla, Mysuru – 570 004. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellants by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 01.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14…

CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia (61 ITR 663) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax