CIT v. Shri Hariram Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

325 ITR 136High Court2010#10783 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 24(b)Section 48 Section 55

Issues it is cited on

section 55 indexed cost of acquisition cost of improvement section 48 section 143(2)transfer person section 143(3)company interest business document

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Hariram Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEVILLE TULI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 3203/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Ld. Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Preetam kumar Turerao, Ld. SR. AR

Section 24Section 250Section 55

…tion of property indisputably having been made with the loan funds, the borrowing directly pertaining to the acquisition of property. Hence, the interest paid thereon would form part of the cost of acquisition. (II) CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 136/188 Taxman 170 (Kar.): Assessee took the loans from the directors to acquire the property te and any interest paid thereon would also be accounted for towards the cost of acquisition of the asset. (III) Asstt. CIT v. C. Ramabrahman [2012] 27 taxmann.com 104 (Chennai): In this case, the assessee had transferred a house property for certain consid…

M/S. SHRI SIDDESHWAR ORGANIC FOODS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…should have been allowed as cost u/s 48(ii) against the sale consideration for computing the long term capital gains. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V/s Sri Hari Ram Hotels Pvt Ltd (2010) 325 ITR 136 wherein it has held that Interest paid is to be treated as part of cost of acquisition of the assets from year to year and is entitled to the benefit of indexation while computing the indexed cost of acquisition. This preposition is also held by various courts in following cases also: - Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Mithilesh Kumari 92…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GOLDEN FALCON PACIFIC LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 3895/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…while computing Capital gains on sale of shares." 20. The Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v MaithreyaPai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Kar) also held the same view. The Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Shri Hariram Hotels Pvt. Ltd. in (2010) 325 ITR 136(Kar) also held that interest paid becomes cost of acquisition In view of all these fact, it is submitted that the interest being Cost of acquisition, the same kindly be allowed. 21. In view of all these propositions. It is prayed that the order of the CIT (A) on this ground be confirmed, and the Department appeal be dismissed. 22 In the meantime…

M/S. GOLDEN FALCON PACIFIC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)

TRIPLE ESS INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR and Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…paid from the period up to the date of sale and therefore, the ratio will apply as binding precedence. Now there are other judgments of Hon’ble High Court, wherein similar proposition has been laid down for instance CIT vs. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 136 Karnataka; and CIT vs. K. Raja Gopala Rao(2002) 252 ITR 459 (Madras). Thus, we direct the AO to allow the interest up to the date of sale. 14. Next issue challenged by the assessee is that, AO has not given credit of other expenses of Rs. 1,13,82,644/- incurred in relation to the property. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted the…

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI vs. KEWAL CHAND RATHORE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for 6

ITA 2657/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2657/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Shri. Kewal Chand Rathore, Of Income Tax, No.24, Bangaru Reddy Street, Non Corporate Circle 10(1) Ayanawaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 023. [Pan Aagpk 0164K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: None

Section 48Section 55(2)

…isallowed the claim since according to him, interest paid was not part of cost of acquisition or cost of improvement. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hariram Hotels (P) Ltd 325 ITR 136 and CIT vs. Maithreyi Pai (2008- TMI-27586) and also a judgment of Hon’bel Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Rajagopala Rao, (2001) 252 ITR 459 held the issue in favour of the assessee. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also quoted from a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Ramabrahman. In our opin…

ANAND PRAKASH,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4222/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 48Section 50C

…n case of C. Ramabrahman reported in 27 taxmann.com 104 (Chennai- Trib) but after withdrawn of claim disallowance of the interest resulted into double taxation. Ld. A.R has placed reliance on the various below decisions : CIT v Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd.* 325 ITR 136:188 TAXMAN170 (KAR.) CIT V Mithlesh Kumari [1973] 92 ITR 9 (Delhi) ACIT v C. Ramabrahmam (2012) 27 taxmann. Com 104 (Chennai) 12. After considering the settled position of law about the allowance of interest on loan taken for the purchase of house property as part of cost more so when assessee has also not taken any other advantage of said inter…

J.M. FINANCIAL & INVESTMENT CONSULANCY SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 92/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Dr. K.ShivramFor Respondent: Miss Shabana Parveen

Section 10(33)Section 14ASection 57

…ITD 469 (Pun) e) DCIT v. KRA Holding & Trading (P.) Ltd. 54 SOT 493 (Pun e) - Portfolio management fees paid by the assessee was to be allowed as deduction while computing capital gains arising from sale of shares. f) CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels P. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 136 (Karn) g) Smt. Neera Jain v. ACIT [ITA No. 18611Muml2009; Decided on 22-2- 2010] 12. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities. 13. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of authorities below and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by ld. AR during the course of hearin…

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

…count of delay of payment of purchase consideration which is directly related to purchase of shares. In support of this contention, assessee had relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Sri Hariram Hotels (P) Limited, reported in 325 ITR 136. However, the Ld. AO disallowed the said claim of interest expenses on the ground that same is not allowable. In response to the show cause notice, in the penalty proceedings, assessee again filed a very detailed explanation/ submissions justifying the claim of deduction of interest of Rs. 90,55,129/- form short-term-capital-gain of Rs. 17,30,19,…

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

…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 acquisition of property. He has submitted that the AO has already allowed Rs.7 lakh out of the tota…