How many judgments cite CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari?

54 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari (92 ITR 9), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 48, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 147, Section 24(b).

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.

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

Issues it is cited on

buyback of shares section 24(b)period of holding section 48 section 55 indexed cost of acquisition full value of consideration cost of improvement date of transfer section 57 short term capital gains section 50c

Judgments citing CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari

DCIT, Circle- 4(1), New Delhi vs. Kanwal Mohan Singh Sehgal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 500/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 24Section 43Section 48Section 54

…est incurred for acquisition of capital asset forms part of cost of asset and relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Sri Hari Ram Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 188 Taxman 178 (Kar) 2. CIT vs. Shri Raja Gopala Rao 252 ITR 459 (Mad) 3. CIT vs. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Delhi) 4. The submission of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who observed that the decisions (supra) are not applicable to the case of the assessee. These decisions (supra) say that actual cost would include all expenditure necessary to bring the assets into existence and put them in working condition. Nowhere it has been held therein…

DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Narinder Bajaj, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3009/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Dcit, Vs Narinder Bajaj, Circle-16(2), E-12/4, 1St Floor, New Delhi Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057. Pan-Aeapb0307H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ankit B.Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2022

…he Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.70,64,205/- on account of interest paid on borrowed capital for purchase of shares on the basis of the decision of the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs Mithlesh Kumar 92 ITR 9 (Del) by ignoring the fact that the facts of the case relied upon by the assessee and Ld. CIT(A) are different from the present case? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in holding that interest expense would form part of cost of acquisition of shares, as the same had been incurred for the purp…

Tn (Dk) Expressways Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 754/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Tn(Dk) Expressways Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward -2(2), C/O. P. Murali & Co., Hyderabad. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, 1St Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 82. Pan : Aacct5634J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao. Revenue By: Sri Rohit Mujumdar. Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2008-09 Arises From The Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 29.02.2016, In Case No.0226/2014-15 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…etitioner to hold on to the investment made before ultimately selling the investment. In this regard the Appellant relies on the judgements Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Addl. CIT Vs. KS Gupta (119 ITR 372) (Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Mithlesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) and Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Maithreyi Pal (152 ITR 247). The copies of above judgements are enclosed hereto for ready reference. 7. It is submitted that the stand of the Assessing Officer that the Appellant had capitalized interest expenditure and added it to Capital Works in progress and therefore is not allowable for the deduction of inte…

Smt. Saroj Bansal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 1226/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)

…property and so interest paid thereon is required to be included in cost of acquisition of said property. The A.P High Court in case of Addl. CIT Vs. K.S. Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 has following judgement of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 held that interest paid on amount borrowed for purchase of open plot of land forms part of cost of acquisition. The High Court of Madras in case of 5 ITA 1225 & 1226/JP/2018_ Chitra Bansal Vs ACIT & 1 Anr CIT Vs. K. Raja Gopala Rao (2001) 252 ITR 459 and High Court of Karnataka in case of CIT Vs. Maithreys Pal (1985) 152 ITR 247 also held in same v…

Smt. Chitra Bansal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 1225/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)

Shri Ramesh Trikamlal Padhiyar, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 902/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ramesh Trikamlal Padhiyar, The Dy. Commissioner Of 19, Tulsivan Co-Op. Society, Vs Income-Tax, Jivan Park, Vejalpur Road, Circle – 3 (3), Ahmedabad-380051 Ahmedabad [Pan : Ackpp 6965 H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/03/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2020

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…had been acquired from borrowed funds. The dispute is whether interest on borrowings can be added to the cost of acquisition of shares. We find that similar situation had been considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithilesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) in which the Hon'ble High Court held that interest paid on borrowings used for purchase of land had to be taken as part of actual cost of purchase of land. The Hon'ble High Court had followed the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fort Gloster Industries (P.) Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 48(Cal.) in which it was held that the inte…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…d 'Capital Gain'. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer re-computed capital gain at Rs. 1,98,58,1017- as against capital gain computed by the assessee at Rs. 62,469/-. The CIT(A), by relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumar (92 ITR 9), accepted the contention of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer filed appeal before the Tribunal. After considering rival contentions and judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Trishul Investments Ltd. (305 ITR 434), the Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). The relevant observations of the Tribunal are extracted be…

Abdullabhai Hasanali Through L/H Zohrabai, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Cir-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 318/NAG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

…der in this regard. From the said para, we find that relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kishorebhai Virani Vs. ACIT reported in (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj) and various decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del), Addl.CIT Vs. K.S. Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 (A.P.), S.Balanalias Shanmuqam Vs. DCIT (2009) 120 ITD 469 (Pune) and discussing all these judgments, Pune Bench of Tribunal held as under:- “10……. We further find that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club (supra) has held that long term capital loss on sale of shares w…

Abdullabhai Hasanali Through L/H Zohrabai, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Cir-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 317/NAG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

Shri. Abdullabhai Hasanali, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, -II, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 621/NAG/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

Ranji Dhawan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5210/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Ranji Dhawan Acit C-728, New Friends Colony, Vs Circle – 28 (1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aadpd4279M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ame was submitted before the AO. The assessee relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench-E in the case of Narendra Gehlaut v JCIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 82 (Delhi) and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v Mithlesh Kumari [1973] 92 ITR 9 (Delhi). 5. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assesee and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so he held that no interest was paid by the assessee for the period prior to purchase of shares. He observed that the issue whether interest paid on the borrowed money for acquisition of the sha…

Triple Ess Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-27, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR and Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…sset has been transferred in this year , then up to the date of transfer, the cost of acquisition and improvement has to be allowed. This issue is also covered by the other decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has allowed the full interest paid from the period up to the date of sale and therefore, the ratio will apply as binding precedence. Now there are other judgments of Hon’ble High Court, wherein similar proposition has been laid down for instance CIT vs. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 136 Karnataka; and CI…

Shri Rameshkumar Trikamlal Padhiyar, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.322/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Shri Rameshkumar Trikamlal Padhiyar Vs. Jcit, Cir.7 B-604, Prayag Apts., Ahmedabad. Opp: Nirma Vihar School Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Ackpp 6965 H

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kannan, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 55Section 55(2)

…ssessee after it became his property,...". Further, the interest expense on money borrowed for purchase of asset is to be included in the cost of acquisition. According to Addl. CIT v/s. K. S. Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 (AP) and CIT V/s. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del.), interest paid by the assessee on money borrowed for the purchase of open plot of land constituted part of the actual cost of the assessee within the meaning of section 55(2) for the purpose of determining the capital gain derived from the sale of the land, The Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal also, in ITO v/s. Smt. Pushpaben Wadhwani (1986) 1…

Smt. Amita Narang, Delhi vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 385/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 385/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

…anuary, 2007, i.e., within a period of less than ten months of its’ purchase by the assessee in April, 2006. 2 Amita Narang v. Dy. CIT 3. The assessee before me relied, as was the case before the ld. CIT(A), on the decisions in CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari [1973] 92 ITR 9 (Del) and CIT (Addl.) v. K.S. Gupta [1979] 119 ITR 372 (AP). The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Sh. Charan Dass, would rely on CIT v. Vardhman Polytex Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 186 (P&H), rendered following CIT v. Vardhman Polytex Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 152 (P&H)(FB). 4. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Section 48, wh…

Horizon Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-25(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3469/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 48

…IT vs. Trishul Investments Ltd. 305 ITR 434 (Madras HC) as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the department. SLP No.CC 8665of 2008 dated 11.07.2008. 2. CIT vs. Maithreyi Pai 152 ITR 247 (Kar. HC) 3. CIT vs. Mithilesh Kumari 92 ITR 9 (Delhi – HC) 4. Gayatri Maheshwari vs. ITO (2017) 88 taxmann.com 757 (Jodhpur) 5. ACIT vs. Mrs. Sheela Chopra ITA No.169/Kol/2014 6. The Ld. A.R. finally prayed before the Bench that in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the appeal of the assessee may be allowed and AO be directed accordingly. 7. The Ld. D.R., on the other h…

Sh. Jatinder Singh Taneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 4885/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 48

…n the cost of acquisition of asset as per Section 48(ii) of the I.T. Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions : (i) Mr. Praveen Gupta vs. ACIT (2012) 20 taxmann.com 309 (Del.) (Tribu.) (ii) CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumar (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del.) (HC) (iii) Pratibha Paliwal vs. ACIT (2012) 19 taxmann.com 355 (Del.) (Tribu.) 7 ITA.No.4885/Del./2015 Shri Jatinder Singh Taneja, New Delhi. (iv) Gayatri Maheshwari vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur (2017) 88 taxmann.com 757 (Jodhpur) (Tribu.) 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. After considering…

M/S. K. Lall (HUF), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1566/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 K. Lall (Huf) Dcit H-8, Maharani Bagh, Vs Circle- 22(1) New Delhi. New Delhi Pan Adhk5198Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 K. Lall (HUF) DCIT H-8, Maharani Bagh, Vs Circle- 22(1) New Delhi. New Delhi PAN ADHK5198Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. K. V. S. R. Krishna, CA Respondent by Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 18/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2018 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.012014 of the CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi relating to A. Y. 2008-09. 2. Ground No.1 of the appeal by the assessee reads as un…

ACIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Flamboyawer Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3388/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 55

…/Mum/2018 8.2 To support its contention, the appellant relied on the following cases: i. DCIT v. Shri Fritz D. Silva ITA No. 236/Mum/2010 decided on 08.05.2015 ii. CIT vs. Trishul investments Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 434 (Mad) iii. CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari (1973)92 ITR 9 (DELHI) 8.3 AO had stated that interest paid cannot be part of cost of acquisition nor it was cost of improvement as per the definition of "cost of acquisition" for the purpose of s. 48 & 49. AO also stated that in AY 2011-12 the appellant has claimed the interest expenditure of Rs. 54,65,753/- as business expenses and disallowed the same u/s. 14A…

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…erved that the meaning of the cost of the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement as appearing in section 48 & 49 has been restricted by the scope of section 55(2). He also distinguished the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mithlesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) relied upon by the assessee on the ground that it was under the old Act and now there is change in the provision. Finally, he has denied the said capitalization of interests on the following grounds:- i. There was no direct nexus between the funds borrowed and investment made in the shares of SBPL. ii. Interest expenditure incurred after the date…

Anand Prakash, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4222/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 48Section 50C

…nai- Trib) but after withdrawn of claim disallowance of the interest resulted into double taxation. Ld. A.R has placed reliance on the various below decisions : CIT v Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd.* 325 ITR 136:188 TAXMAN170 (KAR.) CIT V Mithlesh Kumari [1973] 92 ITR 9 (Delhi) ACIT v C. Ramabrahmam (2012) 27 taxmann. Com 104 (Chennai) 12. After considering the settled position of law about the allowance of interest on loan taken for the purchase of house property as part of cost more so when assessee has also not taken any other advantage of said interest and incurrence of interest expenditure is not under doubt,…