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 366,459 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 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

Gmr Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1556/BANG/2012[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 Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5749/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

Section 4(1)

…of taxable income of the assessee, such interest is deductible while computing capital gains either is cost or is improvement in the asset. The ratio laid down in Addl. CIT vs K.S. Gupta 119 ITR 372 (AP), CIT vs Mithilesh Kumari 92 ITR 9 (Del.), CIT vs M. Pai 152 ITR 247 (Karn.) and Naozar Chenoy vs CIT 234 ITR 95 (AP). Section 48, which is meant for capital gains clearly envisages allowbility of 9 Vembu Vaidyanathan such expenditure which is incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer and for the purpose of cost of acquisition of the asset as deduction from the full value of consideration re…

Gyanshankar Investments & Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4835/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri S T Bidari
Section 271(1)(c)Section 48

…Investments & Trading Co Pvt Ltd decisions, wherein the interest on borrowing for purchase of shares were treated as part of cost while computing the capital gain on sale of shares :- CIT vs Shri Hariram Hotels Pvt Ltd 325 ITR 136 (Karn) CIT vs Maithreyi Pai 152 ITR 247 (Karn) CIT vs Mithlesh Kumari 92 ITR 9 Addl. CIT vs K S Gupta 119 ITR 372 Naozar Chenoy vs CIT 234 ITR 95 Thus assessee’s claim was well supported by the decisions of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Maithreyi Pai (152 ITR 147) and Sri Hariram Hotels (P) Limited (supra). It is not the case that the assessee had made any untenable clai…

M/S Triad Resorts and Hotels (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 791/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita No.791-793/Bang/2014 (Asst. Year – 2008-09) 1) M/S Triad Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Ita No.791) 2) M/S Noorani Properties Pvt. Ltd., (Ita No.792) 3)M/S Verde Developers Pvt. Ltd., (Ita No.793) ‘Aparanta’ No.2208, Hal Iii Stage, 80 Ft Road, Kodihalli, Bangalore-560 008. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Bangalore. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C.P Ramaswami, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT
Section 133ASection 50C

…96-97. He has referred the TDS deduction on the interest payment to the ITC and submitted that the payment of interest is not doubted. The learned AR of the assessee has relied upon the following decisions : ITA No.791-793/B/14 8 1) CIT Vs. Maithreyi Pai, 152 ITR 247 2) CIT Vs. Abrar Alvi, 247 ITR 312 3) CIT Vs. Sri Hariram Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 325 ITR 136 8. On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee failed to prove that the expenditure claimed by the assessee is for improvement of the property or incurred for the purpose of acquisiti…