CIT v. Paramount Premises (P.) Ltd.

190 ITR 259High Court1991#3556 most cited

What is CIT v. Paramount Premises (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Interest earned from funds deployed in business activity cannot be classified under the head 'income from other sources'. It is to be considered as income from business and profession.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Paramount Premises · income from other sources · business income · interest income · business activity · income from business and profession

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 56

Issues it is cited on

section 293section 40a(i)section 10(5)section 44csection 32asection 74section 73section 42section 32(1)(iia)initial assessment yearsection 72vsv scheme

Judgments citing CIT v. Paramount Premises (P.) Ltd.

M/S Shubh Engineering Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3551/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishisubh Engineering Ltd, Vs. Dcit, D-60, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-8(1), Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacs1321F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kauslendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…mitted that there is consistency in the stand of the revenue, which is now being upset by issue of the notice. e. On the merits of the cases he relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Paramount premises private limited reported at 190 ITR 259 and the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhary and sons 203 ITR 881. He further relied upon the several decisions on the each of the above arguments raised before us. 6. Ld. departmental representative also vehemently supported the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer and submitted that there is neither a change of opini…

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Basons Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.103/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Basons Investments Private Ltd. Income Tax 9(2)(1) B/21, Monarch Nagar बनाम/ Road No.665A,6Th Floor J.B.Nagar, Andheri (East) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcb-4095-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Rakesh Joshi ,Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Jenardhanan, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…r perusing object clause in the Memorandum of Association of the assessee and placing reliance on several decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Karsondas Ranchhoddass Vs. CIT [83 ITR 1] & also on CIT Vs. Paramount Premises [190 ITR 259] concluded that interest income was rightly assessed as Business Income. As a logical consequence, Ld. CIT(A) further concluded that interest expenditure had direct nexus with assessee’s business and therefore, the same was allowable in full u/s 37(1). Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative […

Nareshkumar Malhotra, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7953/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

…ITA No.7953/M/2010 Naresh Kumar Malhotra IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7953/Mum/2010 for Assessment Year: 2004-05 Naresh Kumar Malhotra, ACIT, C/o KPMG, 1st Floor, Central Circle-19(1) Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Mumbai Vs. Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai -400061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee represented by S/Sh. Naresh Kumar, Paras Savla and Ms. Sharddha Swarup - ARs Revenue represented by Sh. Suman Kumar -DR Date of hearing 17.04.2017 Date of order 28.04.2017 Order under section 254(1) of…

Rohda Specialtiy Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 830/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…ee before us placing reliance on the following decisions submits that income from fixed deposits in Banks, MIDC & MSEB should be assessed under the head income from business and not under the head income from other sources. 1. CIT Vs. Paramount Premises Ltd. [190 ITR 259] (Bom) 2. Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs CIT [323 ITR 312] (Cal) 3. CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi [318 ITR 420] (Bom) 12. The Ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Swani Spice Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and submits that interest on fixed deposits can never…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 622/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…ee before us placing reliance on the following decisions submits that income from fixed deposits in Banks, MIDC & MSEB should be assessed under the head income from business and not under the head income from other sources. 1. CIT Vs. Paramount Premises Ltd. [190 ITR 259] (Bom) 2. Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs CIT [323 ITR 312] (Cal) 3. CIT Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi [318 ITR 420] (Bom) 12. The Ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Swani Spice Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and submits that interest on fixed deposits can never…

Shubh Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 252/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shubh Enterprises Vs. Acit Cir 15(2) 102 Wing, J Nisarg Bldg. Opp. Mumbai Uti Bank, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali(W) Mumbai - 400067 Pan No. Aayfs3688J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N.M. Porwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Vishwas Mundhe, DR
Section 143(3)

…om other sources’ 5. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Lok Holdings (2009) 308 ITR 356 (Bom.), Shree Krishna Polyster Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 274 ITR 21(Bom.), CIT vs. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom.) and Chhaganlal Khimji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 45 CCH 0082 Mum Trib. 6. Per contra, the learned DR relies on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. The Totgar’s Co-op Sale vs. ITO (Civil Appeal No. 1622 of 2010) dated 08.02.2010. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record.…

Shubh Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 801/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shubh Enterprises Vs. Acit Cir 15(2) 102 Wing, J Nisarg Bldg. Opp. Mumbai Uti Bank, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali(W) Mumbai - 400067 Pan No. Aayfs3688J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N.M. Porwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Vishwas Mundhe, DR
Section 143(3)

…om other sources’ 5. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Lok Holdings (2009) 308 ITR 356 (Bom.), Shree Krishna Polyster Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 274 ITR 21(Bom.), CIT vs. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom.) and Chhaganlal Khimji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 45 CCH 0082 Mum Trib. 6. Per contra, the learned DR relies on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. The Totgar’s Co-op Sale vs. ITO (Civil Appeal No. 1622 of 2010) dated 08.02.2010. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record.…

Pinebridge Investments Capital India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4355/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4355/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Pinebridge Investments Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Capital India Private Income Tax Circle 6(1), V. Limited, Room No. 506, 5 Th Floor, 1101, Tower “B”, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Business Park, M.K. Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 013. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafca7262A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “C” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4355/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Pinebridge Investments Asstt. Commissioner of बनाम/ Capital India Private Income Tax Circle 6(1), v. Limited, Room No. 506, 5 th floor, 1101, Tower “B”, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Business Park, M.K. Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 013. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAFCA7262A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri…

Nathuram Ramnarayan P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2583/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआमकय अऩीर सं. / Ita No.2583/Mum./2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) M/S. Nathuram Ramnarayan Pvt. Ltd. Rustom Building …….………. अऩीरधथी / 29, Veer Nariman Road Appellant Mumbai 400 023 Pan – Aaacn1289P V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Range–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri H.S. Raheja यधजस्व की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal सुनवधई की तधयीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing – 08.10.2015 Date Of Order – 30.10.2015

For Appellant: Shri H.S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal

…ur of the assessee. i) Sujoy Trading Pvt. Ltd., 111 ITD 249 (Mum.) (TM); ii) Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd., 39 TTJ 206 (Mad.) iii) T.N. Dairy Development Corp. Ltd., 216 ITR 535; iv) Indo Swiss Jewels Ltd., 284 ITR 389; v) Paramount Premises Pvt. Ltd., 190 ITR 259; and vi) Lok Holds, 308 ITR 356. M/s. Nathuram Ramnarayan Pvt. Ltd. 7 7. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relying upon the findings of the Departmental Authorities submitted that during the year, neither the assessee has started any business venture nor shown any business income. The income derived by the assessee is fr…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1234 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom). Some factual aspects have also been discussed and mentioned by her. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the earnings and the quantum thereof. Reference was made to the contentions and arguments raised by the parties and thereafter the Tribunal has given its findings in paragraph 8. The said paragraph reads as under:- "W…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1238 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom). Some factual aspects have also been discussed and mentioned by her. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the earnings and the quantum thereof. Reference was made to the contentions and arguments raised by the parties and thereafter the Tribunal has given its findings in paragraph 8. The said paragraph reads as under:- "W…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1228 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom). Some factual aspects have also been discussed and mentioned by her. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the earnings and the quantum thereof. Reference was made to the contentions and arguments raised by the parties and thereafter the Tribunal has given its findings in paragraph 8. The said paragraph reads as under:- "W…

The Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1235 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 259 (Bom). Some factual aspects have also been discussed and mentioned by her. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the earnings and the quantum thereof. Reference was made to the contentions and arguments raised by the parties and thereafter the Tribunal has given its findings in paragraph 8. The said paragraph reads as under:- "W…