CIT v. Mythreyi Pai

152 ITR 247High Court1985#2680 most cited

What is CIT v. Mythreyi Pai authority for?

Expenditure incurred towards the purchase of shares is a capital expenditure and therefore, interest expenditure incurred on such purchases is not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mythreyi Pai · Section 36(1)(iii) · capital expenditure · interest expenditure · purchase of shares · deduction · Income Tax Act

Sections most often in play

Section 48Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24(b)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 55Section 71(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(a)fresh tangible materialindexed cost of acquisitionsection 55valuation of sharessection 48section 40a(2)(b)share capital and share premiumcost of improvementsection 40a(2)disallowance of interest expenditurekelvinator

Judgments citing CIT v. Mythreyi Pai

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)

…ari [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. Raja Gopala Rao [252 ITR 459] - Decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trishul Investments Ltd. [305 ITR 434] - Decision of the Tribunal in the case of Neera Jain Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1861/Mum/2009, dated…

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

…taka High Court and Hon'ble ITAT (Bangalore) on the impugned issue on the ground of avoidance double deduction of interest expenditure under S.48 and Sec.57 of the Act. The decisions in brief are stated below. 7 Mr. Neville Tuli "CIT v. Maithreyi Pai [1985] 152 ITR 247/[1984] 18 Taxman 75 (Kar.): Hon'ble Karnataka High Court inferred that the taxpayer shall not claim a double deduction in respect of the same expenditure. Here in the taxpayer had claimed a deduction in respect of interest paid in respect of a loan taken to purchase shares u/s 48 and the interest expenditure is claimed from her dividend income as…

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)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 110/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 cuke M/s Shri Siddheshwar Organic ACIT Vs. Foods Private Limited, Circle-01, J-6, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCD 3162 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA) jktLo…

Dosch Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4593/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2023AY 2014-15
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dosch Pharmaceuticals Deputy Commissioner Pvt. Ltd. of Income Tax-9(3)(1) 15-C, Laxmi Industries Room No.215, Ltd. New Link Road, V/s AayakarBhavan, M.K. Andheri West Road, Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020 PAN No.AAACDE2320F Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri M. Subramanian Department by Smt. KanupriyaDamor Date of Hearing 06.12.2022 Date of 01.03.2023 Pronouncement ORDER PER KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL: This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order of learned Commissioner of…

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)

…imed as deduction under business head, same should be fall for deduction u/s 48 and would be considered as part of cost of acquisition while computing Capital gains on sale of shares." 20. The Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v MaithreyaPai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Kar) also held the same view. The Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Shri Hariram Hotels Pvt. Ltd. in (2010) 325 ITR 136(Kar) also held that interest paid becomes cost of acquisition In view of all these fact, it is submitted that the interest being Cost of acquisition, the same kindly be allowed. 21. In view of all these proposition…

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)

…imed as deduction under business head, same should be fall for deduction u/s 48 and would be considered as part of cost of acquisition while computing Capital gains on sale of shares." 20. The Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v MaithreyaPai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Kar) also held the same view. The Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Shri Hariram Hotels Pvt. Ltd. in (2010) 325 ITR 136(Kar) also held that interest paid becomes cost of acquisition In view of all these fact, it is submitted that the interest being Cost of acquisition, the same kindly be allowed. 21. In view of all these proposition…

Mr.Santosh S Lad, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1298/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

…th a view to creating capital asset in the form of holding shares. Being so, the judgement relied by Ld. Counsel for the assessee supports the case of revenue rather than assessee’s case. 2.6 We also find that in the case of CIT(A) Vs. United Breweries Ltd., 321 ITR 546 wherein, Hon’ble Karnataka judicial high court held as follows:- “Even on the accepted legal principles, a 'debt' is an expression well-known in legal parlance and is an amount which is a legal obligation which if not discharged will give rise to a claim in favour of the creditor. An amount which is said to be simply advanced for helping a busin…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…t the share application money given has increased from Rs. 65.21 crores to Rs. 82.27 crores. The average of the said amount was worked out by the AO at Rs.73,74,53,130/. According to the AO, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mythreyi Pai 152 ITR 247 and in the case of United Breweries Ltd 321 ITR 546 has held that the expenditure incurred towards purchase of shares is a capital expenditure and does not qualify for deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. According to the AO, interest worked out at the rate of 12% per annum needs to be disallowed from being claimed as a revenue expend…

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…t the share application money given has increased from Rs. 65.21 crores to Rs. 82.27 crores. The average of the said amount was worked out by the AO at Rs.73,74,53,130/. According to the AO, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mythreyi Pai 152 ITR 247 and in the case of United Breweries Ltd 321 ITR 546 has held that the expenditure incurred towards purchase of shares is a capital expenditure and does not qualify for deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. According to the AO, interest worked out at the rate of 12% per annum needs to be disallowed from being claimed as a revenue expend…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…t the share application money given has increased from Rs. 65.21 crores to Rs. 82.27 crores. The average of the said amount was worked out by the AO at Rs.73,74,53,130/. According to the AO, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mythreyi Pai 152 ITR 247 and in the case of United Breweries Ltd 321 ITR 546 has held that the expenditure incurred towards purchase of shares is a capital expenditure and does not qualify for deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. According to the AO, interest worked out at the rate of 12% per annum needs to be disallowed from being claimed as a revenue expend…

Zuari Investements Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4854/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhary(Through Video Conferencing) Zuari Investments Ltd., Vs. Ito Plot No.2, Zamrudpur Ward – 27(4), Community Centre, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi-110 048

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Zuari Investments Ltd., Vs. ITO Plot No.2, Zamrudpur Ward – 27(4), Community Centre, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi-110 048 PAN : AAACZ 0196 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri KVSR Krishna, Adv. Revenue by Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 27.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 05.01.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.0…

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)

…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 interest while arriving at the short term capital gains is illega…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 801/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.RFor Respondent: N O N E
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…ital expenditure and hence interest expenditure incurred on such purchases is not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mythreyi Pai 152 ITR 247 and in the case of United Breweries 321 ITR 546. The A.O. took the view that interest expenditure should be worked by applying the rate of 12% on the value of investment and the said interest expenditure should be disallowed. The interest at the above said rate worked out to Rs.13.40 crores. However, the assessee had claimed interest expenditure…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 800/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.RFor Respondent: N O N E
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…ital expenditure and hence interest expenditure incurred on such purchases is not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mythreyi Pai 152 ITR 247 and in the case of United Breweries 321 ITR 546. The A.O. took the view that interest expenditure should be worked by applying the rate of 12% on the value of investment and the said interest expenditure should be disallowed. The interest at the above said rate worked out to Rs.13.40 crores. However, the assessee had claimed interest expenditure…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1406/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.RFor Respondent: N O N E
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…ital expenditure and hence interest expenditure incurred on such purchases is not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mythreyi Pai 152 ITR 247 and in the case of United Breweries 321 ITR 546. The A.O. took the view that interest expenditure should be worked by applying the rate of 12% on the value of investment and the said interest expenditure should be disallowed. The interest at the above said rate worked out to Rs.13.40 crores. However, the assessee had claimed interest expenditure…

M/S Flight Raja Travels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 135/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 244ASection 41

…view to creating capital asset in the form of holding shares. Being so, the judgment relied on by the ld.Counsel of the assessee supported the case of revenue rather than assessee’s case. 8. We also find that in the case of CIT(A) Vs. United Breweries Ltd., 321 ITR 546 wherein, Hon’ble Karnatka judicial high court held as follows:- “Even on the accepted legal principles, a 'debt' is an expression well-known in legal parlance and is an amount Page 8 of 13 which is a legal obligation which if not discharged will give rise to a claim in favour of the creditor. An amount which is said to be simply advanced for hel…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI (2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011- TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. PandavapuraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd 11 ITA Nos.3317-3319/Bang/2…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI (2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011- TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. PandavapuraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd 11 ITA Nos.3317-3319/Bang/2…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI (2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011- TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. PandavapuraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd 11 ITA Nos.3317-3319/Bang/2…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI (2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011-TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. PandavapuraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd (1988)(174 ITR 475)(Kar) (l)…