CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari

92 ITR 9High Court1973#2141 most cited

What is CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari authority for?

Interest on borrowed capital used to acquire an asset, paid year after year until the date of sale, must be capitalized and included in the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari · 92 ITR 9 · Delhi High Court · Section 48 · cost of acquisition · interest on borrowed capital · capitalization of interest · capital gains computation · interest till date of sale · asset acquisition cost

Sections most often in play

Section 48Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 24(b)Section 263Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharessection 24(b)period of holdingsection 48section 55indexed cost of acquisitionfull value of considerationcost of improvementdate of transfersection 57short term capital gainssection 50c

Judgments citing CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari

Narshi Gopalji Mange, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2064/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

…the case of ACIT V. Frontline Realty Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 7472 & 7473/Mum/2018, ITO v. Ramabrahmam 57 SOT 130 (Chennai ITAT), CIT v. K. Raja Gopal Rao-252 ITR 459 (Madras HC),CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels Pvt Ltd-229 CTR 455 (Karnataka НС),CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari - 92 ITR 9 (Delhi HC), Addl CIT v. K. S. Gupta - 119 ITR 372 (Andhra Pradesh HC), SAS Hotel Ltd v. ITO-4 ITD 297 (Madras ITAT), S. Balan alias Shanmugam Balkrishnan ChettiaF V. DCIT - 120 ITD 469 (Pune ITAT), Praveen Gupta v. ACIT - 137 TTJ 307 (Delhi ITAT} and Burmah Castrol Plc, In re - 175 Taxman 353 (AAR) He submitted that the copy of the loan and interest…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Delhi vs. Hkt Corporation Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 1036/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)

…s under: "11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Coordinate Bench in case of Gayatri Maheshwari vs. ITO (supra) has considered the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Mlithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 and also the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Hariram Hotels (Purchase) Ltd. (2010) 188 taxman 170 (Kar) and has held as under:- 9. We have perused the case records, analysed the facts and circumstances of the case and considered the judicial pronouncements, which was placed before us. In the case of CIT Vs. Mithiles…

Incline Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

ITA 112/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…of ‘cost of acquisition’. Reliance in this regards was placed on the following judicial precedents forming part of the Paper Book filed by the Assessee - Decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mithelsh Kumari [92 ITR 9] - Decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. S. Gupta [119 ITR 372] - Decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maithreyi Pai [152 ITR 247] - Decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K…

ACIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi vs. Dabur Invest Corp., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

ITA 2454/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…sessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the interest paid on borrowed fund after the acquisition of shares cannot be capitalized. It is submitted that it is a settled proposition of law as held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari in 92 ITR 9 that if an asset has been acquired with the help of borrowed capital, then the interest on the borrowed capital paid year after year till the date of sale of assets has to be capitalized. Similar principle has also been reiterated in the following cases: • 215 CTR 96 (Madras) CIT vs. Trishul Capital Ltd. • 315 ITR 136 (KAR) CIT vs. Sri Hari Ram Hote…

ACIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi vs. Dabur Invest Corp, Delhi

ITA 2453/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…sessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the interest paid on borrowed fund after the acquisition of shares cannot be capitalized. It is submitted that it is a settled proposition of law as held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari in 92 ITR 9 that if an asset has been acquired with the help of borrowed capital, then the interest on the borrowed capital paid year after year till the date of sale of assets has to be capitalized. Similar principle has also been reiterated in the following cases: • 215 CTR 96 (Madras) CIT vs. Trishul Capital Ltd. • 315 ITR 136 (KAR) CIT vs. Sri Hari Ram Hote…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

ITA 2448/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…sessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the interest paid on borrowed fund after the acquisition of shares cannot be capitalized. It is submitted that it is a settled proposition of law as held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari in 92 ITR 9 that if an asset has been acquired with the help of borrowed capital, then the interest on the borrowed capital paid year after year till the date of sale of assets has to be capitalized. Similar principle has also been reiterated in the following cases: • 215 CTR 96 (Madras) CIT vs. Trishul Capital Ltd. • 315 ITR 136 (KAR) CIT vs. Sri Hari Ram Ho…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

ITA 2447/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…sessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the interest paid on borrowed fund after the acquisition of shares cannot be capitalized. It is submitted that it is a settled proposition of law as held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari in 92 ITR 9 that if an asset has been acquired with the help of borrowed capital, then the interest on the borrowed capital paid year after year till the date of sale of assets has to be capitalized. Similar principle has also been reiterated in the following cases: • 215 CTR 96 (Madras) CIT vs. Trishul Capital Ltd. • 315 ITR 136 (KAR) CIT vs. Sri Hari Ram Hote…

Fusion Lastek Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1094/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 48

…ansaction that was totally independent of the aforesaid raising of loan and the consequent payment of interest, therefore, the same being distinguishable on facts would not carry the case of the assessee company any further. B. CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari [1973] 92 ITR 9 (Del.) 20. As in the aforementioned case, the issue was as to whether or not the interest paid by the assessee company on the loan borrowed for the purchase of land would constitute the actual cost of the land to the assessee, which we afraid is not the issue in the present case before us, therefore, the said judicial pronouncement would also not c…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Neville Tuli, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 3203/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Ld. Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Preetam kumar Turerao, Ld. SR. AR
Section 24Section 250Section 55

…8 Though Ld. Senior Advocate drew our attention to various judgments as mentioned in the paper book, however, in order to avoid the repetition, we are referring to only one judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari 92 ITR 9 wherein the following question was framed: 12 Mr. Neville Tuli “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the interest amount of Rs.16,878/- and the ground rent of Rs.3,793/- constituted part of the actual cost of the plot to the Assessee for the purpose of determining the capital gain? 8.9 The Hon’ble High Court considered the ju…

Bani Broto Banerjee, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 520/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 57

…ance of Rs.1,82,53,834/- on account of interest on borrowed funds and held that such interest cost will form part of the cost of acquisition placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari (1937) 92 ITR 9 (Del) and other judgments as noted in earlier paragraphs. 7.2 We find that the reasons cited by the CIT(A) are sound and is in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal. We thus see no reason to interfere. 7.3 Significantly, the Finance Bill, 2023 has proposed certain amendment in…

Mr. Mehul Harish Nisar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle20(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4702/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Mehul Nisar, Acit-Circle-20(2), Amrut Tower, 247, Telang Road, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Matunga, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aadpn 9622 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal

…ord. The Coordinate Bench in case of Gayatri Maheshwari vs. ITO Maheshwari vs. ITO (supra) has considered the decision of Hon'ble Delhi (supra) has considered the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Court in case of CIT vs. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 and also (1973) 92 ITR 9 and also the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Hariram Hotels Hariram Hotels (Purchase) Ltd. (2010) 188 taxman 170 (Kar) and has (2010) 188 taxman 170 (Kar) and has held as under:- -…

Jayanthi Krishnamurthy, L/R Divya Krishnasayee, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-III(4), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 893/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Amandhon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.893/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Ms.Diyyakrishnasayee Dcit बनाम/ L/R Of Late Jayanthi Krishnamurthy Central Circle-Iii(4) 12, Bakthavatchalam Colony Ii Street, Vs. Chennai. Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Adxpj-7239-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)

…nent would be allowable in the computations of capital gains as per the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sri Hariram Hotels P Ltd (188 Taxman 170)as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari (92 ITR 9). 7. We find that this is undisputed fact that the assessee was engaged in real estate projects. The assessee acquired vacant land towards projects and availed certain loan from the bank in two concerns. However, the project did not take-off and the assessee defaulted in repayment. Admittedly, the assessee was engaged in the business of real estate…

Rajesh Saluja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5190/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 24

…ssing officer has erred in disallowing the amount of Rs. 94,17,082/-which is interest paid on housing loan and indexed cost of the same is Rs. 1,16,43,521/-. 5. That the Assessing officer has wrongly interpreted the judgment of CIT Vs Mithilesh Kumari (1973), 92 ITR 9 (DEL). 6. The CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the same on the basis of the judgment passed in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 31 ITR 285 (SC), which is also in favor of the assessee. The CIT(A) has also wrongly interpreted the judgment. 7. That the additions confirmed and the observations made by CIT(A) are unju…

Ashutosh Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaizabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 57

…d counsel further submits that interest paid by the assessee on acquisition of assets in earlier years is to be treated as part of cost of acquisition and placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari – (92 ITR 9) and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raja Gopala Rao – (252 ITR 459). Further, reliance was also 7 placed on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sh. Subhash Bana Vs. ACIT – ITA No.147/Del/2015 dated 19.02.2018. 10. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the…

M/S Waterfront Housing & Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1100/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Waterfront Housing & Vs. Ito, Ward-12(2), Pune. Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajyog Creations Apts, Anand Park, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aaacw9020F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 48(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act From The Long Term Capital Gains, In Respect Of The Indexed Cost Of Interest Paid For The Acquisition Of The House Property Sold By The Assessee, Made By The Assessing Officer By Travelling Beyond The Issue For Which This Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Is Without Jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Eared Is Not Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.24,38,826/- U/S 48(Ii) From The Long Term

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 48Section 50C

…ats and, therefore, the indexed cost of such expenditure should be allowed as deduction while computing the capital gains relying on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Hariram Hotels (P) Ltd., 2010 TaxPub (DT) 1093 (Karn-HC). (ii) CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari, 92 ITR 9 (Del). (iii) Addl.CIT vs. KS Gupta, (1976) 44 CCH 0522 APHC. (iv) Gayatri Maheshwari vs. ITO, ITA No.208/JODH/2017. 5 ACIT vs. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, ITA No.169/KOL/2014. 6. However, the NFAC rejected the submissions of the appellant company relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co., 231 ITR 285…

M/S. Shri Siddeshwar Organic Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…n of the assets from year to year and is entitled to the benefit of indexation while computing the indexed cost of acquisition. This preposition is also held by various courts in following cases also: - Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Mithilesh Kumari 92 ITR 9 - ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT V/s Sunena Garg 10 M/s Shri Siddeshwar Organic Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT –vs. Maithreyi Pai reported in 152 ITR 247, held that interest paid on the borrowings for the acquisition of an capital asset could not be deducted for the purpose of computation under…

ACIT Circle-20(2), New Delhi vs. Sadhna Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6620/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ance of Rs.1,82,53,834/- on account of interest on borrowed funds and held that such interest cost will form part of the cost of acquisition placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari (1937) 92 ITR 9 (Del) and other judgments as noted in earlier paragraphs. 7.2 We find that the reasons cited by the CIT(A) are sound and is in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal. We thus see no reason to interfere. 7.3 Significantly, the Finance Bill, 2023 has proposed certain amendment in…

ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Frontline Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7472/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 7472 & 7473/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) M/s. Frontline Realty Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6th Floor, Aayakar 16th Floor, Lodha Supremus, Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 PAN/GIR No. AABCF 0695 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Atul T. Suraiya/Snehal Negandhi Assessee by Revenue by : Shri Vranda U Matkarni : 10.01.2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Raj…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3895/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…other method would be contrary to Principles of accountancy." 18. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon. Court followed the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CHALLAPALLI SUGARS LTD v C.LT. (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC) and CIT v Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Delhi) followed. The Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Mithilesh Kumari reported in (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Delhi) held: 18 ITA NO.3895 & 3653/DEL/2015 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd "(i) that interest paid by the assessee on the money borrowed for the purchase of open plot of land constituted part of actual cost of the assessee w…

M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…other method would be contrary to Principles of accountancy." 18. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon. Court followed the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CHALLAPALLI SUGARS LTD v C.LT. (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC) and CIT v Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Delhi) followed. The Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Mithilesh Kumari reported in (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Delhi) held: 18 ITA NO.3895 & 3653/DEL/2015 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd "(i) that interest paid by the assessee on the money borrowed for the purchase of open plot of land constituted part of actual cost of the assessee w…