CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria

208 ITR 616High Court1994#2625 most cited

What is CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria authority for?

The activity of controlling, managing, administering, and financing companies, including purchasing shares for acquiring controlling interest and not just for dividends, constitutes a business or vocational activity. Therefore, income derived from such activities is considered business income.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria · business activity · vocational activity · controlling interest · managing companies · financing companies · business income · section 36(1)(iii) · section 37(1)

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

Eicher Goodearth Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent

ITA - 54 / 2000HC Delhi14 May 2015
Section 36Section 5Section 56Section 57Section 80ASection 80M

…ssentially business in nature, the expenditure incurred has to be treated as such under Section 36 (1) (iii). He further relied upon the 2015:DHC:4310-DB ITA 54/2000 Page 4 decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 where in somewhat similar circumstances, the Court upheld the assessee’s contention that such expenditure, i.e., interest on borrowings had to be dealt with under Section 36 (1) (iii) and not under Section 57. The Calcutta High Court on that occasion noticed previous authorities including the judgments of the Supreme Court. We also notice…

Eicher Goodearth Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent

ITA/54/2000HC Delhi14 May 2015
Section 36Section 5Section 56Section 57Section 80ASection 80M

…ssentially business in nature, the expenditure incurred has to be treated as such under Section 36 (1) (iii). He further relied upon the 2015:DHC:4310-DB ITA 54/2000 Page 4 decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 where in somewhat similar circumstances, the Court upheld the assessee’s contention that such expenditure, i.e., interest on borrowings had to be dealt with under Section 36 (1) (iii) and not under Section 57. The Calcutta High Court on that occasion noticed previous authorities including the judgments of the Supreme Court. We also notice…

CIT vs. Goswamis Credits & Investments Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 603 / 2012HC Delhi16 Oct 2012
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ssessee in that case being a sister concern of the present assessee) a similar order was set aside; the Court had then observed as follows: . ?5. The assessee in support of its contention had relied upon CIT versus Raeeva Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal.), CIT versus Indian Bank Limited, (1965) 56 ITR 77 (SC), CIT versus Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited, (1971) 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation versus CIT, (2000) 242 ITR 450 (SC). . 6. The CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal have considered the aforesaid explanation given by the assessee to justify thei…

CIT vs. Jindal Equipment Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 68 / 2012HC Delhi03 Feb 2012
Section 115OSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ning management control over the investee companies. Expenditure for the purpose of business merits to be allowed as a deduction.? . . . 5. The assessee in support of its contention had relied upon CIT versus Raeeva Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal.), CIT versus Indian Bank Limited, (1965) 56 ITR 77 (SC), CIT versus Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited, (1971) 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation versus CIT, (2000) 242 ITR 450 (SC). . 6. The CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal have considered the aforesaid explanation given by the assessee to justify thei…