CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria

208 ITR 616High Court1994#2658 most cited

What is CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria authority for?

Interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring a controlling interest in a company is an allowable business expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) if incurred out of commercial exigency.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria · Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria · 208 ITR 616 · section 36(1)(iii) · section 36 · interest on borrowed funds · acquiring controlling interest · allowable business expenditure · commercial expediency · disallowance of interest expenditure

Issues it is cited on

strategic investmentdisallowance of interest expendituresection 36(1)(iii)interest under section 234acommercial expediencydisallowance under section 14arevenue expendituresection 36(1)section 36section 37(1)section 234asection 37

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria

SRI MUKESH GUPTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/283/2022HC Karnataka31 Oct 2025

Bench: D K SINGH,RAJESH RAI K

Section 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ITA NO 283 OF 2022 BETWEEN SRI MUKESH GUPTA S/o SRI. G.S.GUPTA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS No. 1832, 3RD MAIN, 12TH CROSS, RVM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 094. PAN: AANPG1383P ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASEKHAR V, ADVOCATE) AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(2) BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, 80 FEET ROAD BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL…

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5764/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure:” 1. CIT. Shrishti Securities [2010] 321 ITR 498/2009] 183 Taxman 159 (Bom.) 2 CIT v Rajeev Lochan Kanoria [1994] 208 ITR 616/1995] 80 Taxman 572 (Cal) Therefore, based on the above cited facts and circumstances and position in case law, the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee is out of commercial exigency of the business and hence should be allowed as business expenditure under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, and we accordingly direct the Ld. CIT (A)/AO to d…

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5260/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure:” 1. CIT. Shrishti Securities [2010] 321 ITR 498/2009] 183 Taxman 159 (Bom.) 2 CIT v Rajeev Lochan Kanoria [1994] 208 ITR 616/1995] 80 Taxman 572 (Cal) Therefore, based on the above cited facts and circumstances and position in case law, the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee is out of commercial exigency of the business and hence should be allowed as business expenditure under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, and we accordingly direct the Ld. CIT (A)/AO to d…

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2917/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…PL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To support of her contentions, the ld. Counsel placed reliance…

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6482/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…PL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To support of her contentions, the ld. Counsel placed reliance…

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6480/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…PL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To support of her contentions, the ld. Counsel placed reliance…

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6473/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…PL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To support of her contentions, the ld. Counsel placed reliance…

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6471/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…PL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To support of her contentions, the ld. Counsel placed reliance…

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4150/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…PL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To support of her contentions, the ld. Counsel placed reliance…

PREMJI THAVER SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-53, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n the following decisions:- 4 Shri Premji Thaver Shah (a) Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (b) Decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Lochan Kanoria reported in 208 ITR 616 3.3. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made on account of interest and accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 12/07/2022 by w…

DCIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2232/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद%य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2232/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s.Shriram Investments Tax, Mookambika Complex, Non-Corporate Circle-2(1) 4, Lady Desika Street, Chennai-34. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. PAN: AAAFS 2590M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by Mr. K.N.Dhandapani, Addl.CIT : Mr. R.…

SRI.MUKESH GUPTA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 209/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R. Addl.CIT-DR
Section 14A

…, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A.Builder’s case is clearly distinguishable. 9.3 The reliance placed by the learned AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajeev Lochan Kaneria reported in (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal) is also 8 ITA No.2739/Bang/2017 & Ors. Shri Mukesh Gupta. misplaced. In the facts of the said case, there was a categorical finding that investment in shares was admittedly the business of the assessee and interest expenditure on borrowed funds is an allowable business expenditure of the assessee. In the instant case, it is not established…

SRI.MUKESH GUPTA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 208/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R. Addl.CIT-DR
Section 14A

…, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A.Builder’s case is clearly distinguishable. 9.3 The reliance placed by the learned AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajeev Lochan Kaneria reported in (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal) is also 8 ITA No.2739/Bang/2017 & Ors. Shri Mukesh Gupta. misplaced. In the facts of the said case, there was a categorical finding that investment in shares was admittedly the business of the assessee and interest expenditure on borrowed funds is an allowable business expenditure of the assessee. In the instant case, it is not established…

SRI. MUKESH GUPTA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2739/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R. Addl.CIT-DR
Section 14A

…, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A.Builder’s case is clearly distinguishable. 9.3 The reliance placed by the learned AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajeev Lochan Kaneria reported in (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal) is also 8 ITA No.2739/Bang/2017 & Ors. Shri Mukesh Gupta. misplaced. In the facts of the said case, there was a categorical finding that investment in shares was admittedly the business of the assessee and interest expenditure on borrowed funds is an allowable business expenditure of the assessee. In the instant case, it is not established…

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 234/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 253Section 36(1)(iii)

…), Chandigarh and Others, order dated 14/12/2006 reported in AIR 2007 SC 482, (2007)1 SCC 781, MANU/SC/8798/2006. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 274 CTR (Raj.) 384. (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Rajeev Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal) (iv). Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sanghi Finance and Investment Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 268 (MP) 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order discussing all the material facts and circumstances of the case. 14. We have heard…

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 253Section 36(1)(iii)

…), Chandigarh and Others, order dated 14/12/2006 reported in AIR 2007 SC 482, (2007)1 SCC 781, MANU/SC/8798/2006. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 274 CTR (Raj.) 384. (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Rajeev Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal) (iv). Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sanghi Finance and Investment Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 268 (MP) 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order discussing all the material facts and circumstances of the case. 14. We have heard…

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONSLTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stand allowed to that extent

ITA 4041/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4041/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Acit-2(3) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. बिाम/ Room No.555 Bombay House Aaykar Bhavan 24, Homi Modi Street Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3664/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Acit-2(3) बिाम/ Bombay House Room No.555 24, Homi Modi Street Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement Assessment Year 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80MSection 90

…ii), also relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s v Phil Corporation (202 Taxman 368) & CIT v Srishti Assessment Year 2003-04 Securities Pvt. Ltd. (321 ITR 498); decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT V/s Rajeev Lochan Kanoria (208 ITR 616); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Eicher Goodearth Ltd. V CIT (378 ITR 28); decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. RPG Transmission Ltd. (359 ITR 673) 10.4 At the outset, it could be noted that dividend income is not exempt in this year but a deduction is allowed to the assessee u/s 80-M in respect of dividend. We are of the considered opin…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6482/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 14ASection 43D

…as submitted that the assessee made investment in subsidiary and investment is strategic investment in support of his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the ITA No. 4736 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India 14 decisions of CIT vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria (1994] (208 ITR 616) Calcutta High Court, Garware Wall Repes Ltd. vs. ACIT [2014] taxmann.com 18) Mumbai Tribunal, JM Financial Limited (ITA No. 4521/Mum/2012) (Mumbai Tribunal), Interglobe Enterprises Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1362 & 1032/Del/2013) (Delhi Tribunal, EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1503/Mds/2012) (Chennai Tribunal), CIT vs. Oriental Structu…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NILGIRI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3193/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37

…investment of Rs. 50 crores by the assessee company was in furtherance of the business objectives and come under commercial expediency. Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria 208 ITR 616 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that though ordinarily capital expenditure may not be allowed as deduction under section 37 because the section specifically bars any deduction of expenditure of capital nature, section 37 is differently worded and there is no bar in section 36 (1)(iii) of the Act to allow the interest paid in respect of…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross

ITA 2258/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon. Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Hon. Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2012-13 & C.O. No. 2/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2), Kolkata………………......…….…….....…....Appellant Vs. M/s. Williamson Magor and Company Limited………...........................……………..…......Respondent 4, Mango Lane Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AAACW 2369 P] Appearances by: Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri D.S. Damle, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Da…

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3