How many judgments cite CIT v. Mythreyi Pai?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mythreyi Pai (152 ITR 247), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mythreyi Pai come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 48, Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 24(b), Section 250, Section 36(1)(iii).

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 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 48 Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 24(b)Section 250 Section 36(1)(iii)Section 55 Section 71(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(a)fresh tangible material indexed cost of acquisition section 55 valuation of shares section 48 section 40a(2)(b)share capital and share premium cost of improvement section 40a(2)disallowance of interest expenditure kelvinator

Judgments citing CIT v. Mythreyi Pai

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)

…pen 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 view. In view of these judicial pronouncements the assessee has correctly claimed the interest paid on borrowings for purchase of plot as cost of improvements. The action of A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and thus cannot be sustained. Thus, the addition of Rs. 5,17,339/-is grossly wrong and bad in law and accordingly del…

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)

Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT 2, Mumbai

ITA 2848/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -2, 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan –Aaccs1776N M/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2(3)(2), 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 552, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan – Aaccs1776N Appellant By: S/Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Kalpesh Turalkar, A.Rs Respondent By: S/Shri Salil Mishra, Cit D.R & V.Vinod Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing: 04.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

For Appellant: S/shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Kalpesh Turalkar, A.RsFor Respondent: S/shri Salil Mishra, CIT D.R & V.Vinod Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…uating but it should be fixed, except in circumstances where the law permits substitution. Further, in the case of Captain B.L Lingaraju vs. ACIT [ITA No. 906/Bang/2014], the Hon’ble Bangalore Tribunal observed that in the case of CIT Vs. Maithreyi Pai [1985] 152 ITR 247 (Kar), Hon’ble Karnataka High Court had held that interest paid on borrowings for the acquisition of capital asset must fall for deduction as the cost of acquisition. But, if such sum was already allowed as a deduction under other heads, the same cannot be allowed as a deduction in computing capital gains. The Hon’ble High Court also held that ‘N…

M/S. Hac India Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, statistical purposes the appeal of the assessee is treated to be allowed

ITA 540/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.540/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…laim of double deduction which is not permissible under the law. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax,... vs Maithreyi Pai reported in (1984) 43 CTR Kar 88, 1985 152 ITR 247 KAR, 1985 152 ITR 247 Kam, 1984 18 TAXMAN 75 Kar. The Hon'ble court has held that "The interest paid on borrowings for the acquisition of a capital asset must fall for deduction under s. 48. But, if the same sum is already the subject-matter of deduction under other heads like those under s. 57, we cannot understand how it could find place again for the purpose of com…

DCIT vs. M/S Jupiter Capial Pvt. Ltd

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1595/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2010-11 DCIT, Circle 11(5), M/s. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. PAN : AABCJ 5666 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Assessee by : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date of hearing : 13.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the Revenue and the same is directed against the order o…

Ashok Kumar Shahi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5155/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 48

…above case- reg. In the above case, apart from relying on the order of AO, order of CIT(A) and my oral arguments in the case, it is humbly submitted Page 7 of 14 that the following decisions may kindly be considered: 1. CTR Kar 88,1985 1521TR 247 KAR, 1985 152 ITR 247 Karn, 198418 TAXMAN 75 Kar The interest paid on borrowings for the acquisition of a capital asset must fall for deduction u/s 48. But, if the same sum is already the subject- matter of deduction under other heads like those u/s 57, we cannot understand how it could find place again for the purpose of computation u/s 48. No assessee under the sche…

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

…d on a series of decisions which are as under: 1. CIT 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 dir…

M/S. Tuv Rheinland Nife Academy Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16

ITA 3160/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Tuv Rheinland Nife Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Academy Pvt. Ltd., Ward-7(1)(2), No.27/B, 2Nd Cross, 13, Bengaluru. Konappan Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Electronic City, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aaect 8703 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…idence to establish that these amounts were included in the income of the assessee; either in this year or in earlier years. (iv) In doing so, the learned CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of United Breweries Ltd., (321 ITR 546) (Kar.). 6.3.1 Before us, the assessee reiterated its contentions as put forth before the CIT(A); namely that the two main conditions for write off of any amount as “bad debts” is as under: (i) The amounts involved were shown as revenue and duly reflected in the books of accounts as such; and (ii) That, in case these amounts or part thereof are…

Rajiv Yashwant Bhale, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 279/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.27 & 279/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

…ssessee; (d) In case of business loss, the requirement of write off in the books of account of the assessee is not a mandatory condition. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have allowed the claim of business loss; and (e) CIT(A) unfairly relied on distinguishable 321 ITR 546. Mr. Rajiv Yashwant Bhale In view of the above, Ld. Counsel submitted in writing for remanding the issues to the file of AO. 16. Per Contra, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the loans given by the assessee to the said two concerns is never a business loss as the assessee never engaged in the financing business activities. He also submitte…

Rajiv Yashwant Bhale, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

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

ITA 27/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

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

…s favour, while same do not Revenue. We have also perused the case law relied by the assessee. The same do not advert to any judicial precedence, making down the law in the matter. Two, in all cases of the purchase of shares, viz. CIT vs. Maithreya Pai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Kar.); Shri Mahendra C. Shah vs. Addl. CIT (2011) 140 TTJ 16 (Mum); S. Balan vs. Dy CIT (2009) 120 ITD 469 (Pune), which are relevant for specific purposes, the interest has been allowed as being toward the acquisition of the shares. We have already clarified that the purchase of shares in the present case was, beginning prior to 01.04.1981, com…

Kapil Rajkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3392/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3392/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kapil Rajkumar Jain Ito, Ward 1(3), बनाम/ 601, Paramount, H. N. Estate, Thane G.B. Road, Patlipada, Vs. Thane (W)-400 607 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afipj 4486 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kapil R. Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari

For Appellant: Shri Kapil R. JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 48

…24 does not form part of cost of acquisition or cost of Improvement as held by Smt. S. Valliammai v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 713, which is further followed in Mrs. Umayal Ramanathan by ITAT Chennai and Karnatka High Court in the case of CIT v Maithreyi Pai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Kar) c. In view of Joginder Singh Chawla, Appellant Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3) , Mumbai. I.T.A No.349/Mum/2010, the interest which was not claimed as deduction u/s 24(b) and was capitalised is neither cost of acquisition nor cost of improvement. d. Further Hon'ble SC in Escorts Ltd & Another v Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC…

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

…the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithilesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) & catena of other decisions which are as under:- • Trishul Investments Ltd vs. CIT: 305 ITR 434 (Mad.) • ACIT v: K S Gupta: 119-ITR372 (Andh.) • CIT v, MaithreyiPai: 152 ITR 247 (Kar.) • CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao: 252 ITR 459 (Madras) • CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd: 188 Taxman 170 (Kar.) 123 | P a g e I.T.A .No.-4737/Del/2017 • Praveen Gupta v. ACIT: 20 Taxmann.com 308 (Del.) • S. Balan alia Shanmugam v. DCIT: 120 ITD 469 (Pune) • Gayatri Maheshwari vs. ITO: 187 TTJ 33 (Jodhpur) 69. Regarding applicability of A…

Bgr Investment Holdings Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes; the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed; and the assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 476/CHNY/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2017AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Ms. Vijayaprabha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 31.08.2017

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…ct of Illinois, referred to as the ‘Project’ in the engagement letter dated October 12, 2012 (PB pages 17 – 20). It is stated before us that the acquisition did not materialize, and the expense was thus abortive. Relying on CIT v. United Breweries Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 546 (Kar), it is pleaded that the expenditure incurred in connection with acquiring a 3 ITA Nos.476 & 507/Mds/2017 & CO.No.41/Mds/2017 (in ITA No.507/Mds/2017) BGR Investment Holding Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT/Asst. CIT (AY 2013-14) capital asset, being in the nature of a fee paid toward consultation for the business expansion, is to be regarded as reven…

Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and the assessee's

ITA 169/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Ramadhyani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 14A

…made from borrowed capital and therefore the interest on the borrowed capital needs to be capitalised along with the assets acquired. The Assessing Officer has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mythri Pai 152 ITR 247 as well as in the case of CIT Vs. United Breweries Ltd. 321 ITR 546. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the interest of Rs.9,68,00,850. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) has observed that the total out flow for purpose of fixed assets and investment during the year was Rs.85.99 Crores whereas increase in borrowed fund s Rs.15.49 Cror…

Sri Nand Kishore Khemani, Kolkata vs. The C.I.T Kolkata - III, Kolkata

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

ITA 93/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 48

…ed for acquisition of the capital asset and capitalized in the books of account must be included in the actual cost of the site. Although the ld. D.R. has cited the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT –vs.-Maithreyi Pai reported in 152 ITR 247 in support of the revenue’s case, it is observed that it was held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the said case that interest paid on the borrowings for the acquisition of an capital asset could not be deducted I.T.A. No. 93/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 4 of 5 for the purpose of computation under section 48, if the same was…

J.V Gokal Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1454/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1454/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri. Naveen Gupta

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35D

…dgements (i) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India 123Taxman 433 Del (ii)CIT Vs Kelvinator of India(Civil Appeal No. 2520 of 2008187 Taxman 312(SC) (iii) Asian Paints Ltd DCIT 308ITR 195 Bom (iv) Idea Cellulor Ltd DCIT 301 ITR 407 Bom (v) CIT Vs United Breweries Ltd 321 ITR 546 and finally prayed that order passed by the AO deserved to be annulled and quashed as the re-opening was based on the same information/records which were before the AO in the first re-opening and this amounted to change of opinion which is not permissible under the law. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below.…

Raychem Rpg P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4641/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri D. Karunakar Raoassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Raychem Rpg Pvt. Additional Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, बनाम/ Rpg House, 463, Range-7(2), Vs. Dr. Annie Beasant Road, 6Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai-400030 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacr8032L

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…ticals & Chemical Ltd. v. DCIT (45 SOT 37) (TAhd.) iii. ITO vs. Rexnord Electronics & Control Ltd (2009 TIOL 27 ITAT Mum) iv. Climate Systems India Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA No 1698/Del/2009) Expenses incurred for Feasibility Study i. CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd. (321 ITR 546) (Kar.) ii. CIT v. Priya Village Roadshow Ltd (185 Taxman 44) (Del.) iii. Polyplex Corpn. Ltd v. ITa (122 TTJ 949) (TDel.) iv. Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd. (175 ITH. 72) (Raj.) 3.2. On the other hand, the ld. DR, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the Assessing Of…

Gmr Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1072/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

…interest to be treated as part of cost and reduced from the sale consideration in computing the capital gains. • S Balan V DCIT (308 ITR 151) (Pune) (AT) • CIT V Mithlesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) (Del) • Addl CIT V K S Gupta (119 ITR 372) (AP) • CIT V Maithreyi Pai (152 ITR 247) (Karn) • CIT V Indian Overseas Bank Ltd (222 ITR 77) (Mad) 4.2 The appellant humbly prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to add the disallowance made under 14A to the cost of mutual fund units.” In this view of the matter, we are of the view that it would be in the fitness of things to remand this issue back to the file of the learned CI…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Gmr Power Corporation Ltd., (Formerly Known As Gmr Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1629/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)