How many judgments cite CIT v. Sridev Enterprises?

125 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sridev Enterprises (192 ITR 165), spanning 2010 to 2025.

CIT v. Sridev Enterprises

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sridev Enterprises come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 142(1), Section 14A, Section 1961 - Sections 14A, Section 1962 - Rule 8D.

192 ITR 165High Court1991#827 most cited

What is CIT v. Sridev Enterprises authority for?

Interest expenditure on borrowed funds, especially when used for making advances, should generally be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) if its nature and business expediency remain consistent with previous assessment years. The character of an outstanding amount at the start of an accounting year is considered the same as at the end of the prior year, reinforcing the rule of consistency.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sridev Enterprises · Sridev Enterprises · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest disallowance · interest-free advances · borrowed funds · rule of consistency · business expediency · outstanding dues · consistency principle

Also reported as

59 Taxmann 439

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 142(1)Section 14A Section 1961 - Sections 14A Section 1962 - Rule 8D Section 22 Section 23

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205 section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utility section 52 interest free advances going concern section 36(1)(iii)proviso to section 2(15)mli business expediency

Judgments citing CIT v. Sridev Enterprises

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

…310 ITR 310 (Bom) Basant Poddar v. CIT, 412 ITR 529 (Kar) Girish Bansal v. UOI, 384 ITR 161 (Del) Y. Rathiesh v. CIT, 372 ITR 73 (AP) Raja Malwinder Singh v. CWT, 334 ITR 115 (P&H) Azimganj Estate (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 372 ITR 243 (Cal) CIT v. Sridev Enterprises, 192 ITR 165 (Kar) CIT v. Excel Industries, 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT v. Plaza Hotels (P) Ltd. 107 taxmann.com 287 (Bom) BSNL v. UOI, 3 SCC 1 CIT v. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. (P&H) CIT v. JPS Associates, 228 Taxman 367 Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P) Ltd. 409 ITR 545 (Bom) 74. The ld. AR further submitted that trading in F&O derivative bein…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

M/S Mahavir Techno Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Cricle, Kurukshetra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 332/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36(1)(iii)

…of the business transaction because there was no term of charging of interest. There was a opening debit balance of Rs. 6,26,00,915/- which was also on account of supply of goods. That Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (192 ITR 165 (Kar) have observed as under:- "We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Appellate Tribunal The status of the amount outstanding from Nalanda on the first day of the accounting year is the amount that stood outstanding on the last day of the previous accounting year and, therefore, its nature and status cannot be different on the first…

Tirupati Procon Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-25(3), New Delhi

ITA 8224/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: For RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 150Section 37(1)

…no question to consider genuineness of the loan outstanding in assessment year under appeal coming up from the earlier years in assessment year under appeal. The Hon’ble 9 ITA.No 8224/Del./2019 Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sri Dev Enterprises 192 ITR 165 considered the following question: - “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that since no additions have been made in earlier years, the opening debit balance cannot be considered during the current year and that the enquiry has to be limited to the increase in the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Gokaldas Images Pvt.Ltd

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/77/2015HC Karnataka02 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(45)Section 260Section 260ASection 709(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.77 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE-11, RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT. LTD., 7 & 12, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE-560022 PAN: AAACG 6637Q. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.…

M/S. Alp Consulting Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1738/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. R. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ing to the assessee and arrived at a sum of Rs.11,40,764, which was disallowed and added to total income of assessee. 5. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Sridev Enterprises, 192 ITR 165 (Karn) wherein it was held that if the opening balance of loans advanced and its nature is accepted in the earlier assessment year and if in the earlier assessment year those advances were considered as for the purpose of business, then a different view cannot be taken for the current assessment year. The assessee therefore submitted that disallo…

Kanchan Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1854/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…CIT there cannot be any disallowance for the year under consideration on the money borrowed in the earlier year. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs.Sridev Enterprise reported in 192 ITR 165 wherein it was held as under: In the instant case the status of the amount standing as outstanding due from N on the first day of the accounting year was the amount that stood outstanding on the last day of the previous accounting year; therefore, its nature and status could not be different on the first day of the current accounting year, from i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2652/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(A) 129, Transport Centre, New Range-8 Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Dcit Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Central Circle-21 129, Transport Centre, New New Delhi Rohtak Road (Appellant) Punjabi Bagh New Delhi Aaacs0447A (Respondent) Vs Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Dcit 129, Transport Centre, New Circle-8(1) Rohtak Road New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacs0447A (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent By Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2020 Orders Dated 21/2/2014 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By Cit(A)’S-Xi, New Delhi.

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 69

…er in the last year when the assessment for the said assessment year was completed by the same Assessing Officer who has done the assessment for the assessment year under consideration. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises, (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Karn.) The Ld. AR submitted that similar share application money was given in earlier assessment year and no such disallowance of interest has been made therein. Therefore, when there is no change in the facts of the present case, then no disallowance in the present assessment year can be made. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Neo Poly Pac…

M/S. Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2429/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 69

M/S. Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2428/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 69

Shri. Ramareddy Ramesh, Anekal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2027/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shree Ramareddy Ramesh, The Ito Ward 2 (2) (4), Gandhi Circle, Near Srirama Temple, Bengaluru. Newpet, Anekal - 562106 Vs. Pan : Aghpr5864L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2020 Date Of : 17.03.2020 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri A.K.Garodia, Am This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) – 3, Bangalore Dated 14.09.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Filed Revised & Concise Grounds Of Appeal As Per Which Although The Assessee Has Raised As Many As 6 Grounds But The Effective Grievance Is Only One I.E. Bout Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs. 57,09,961/-. 3. In The Course Of Hearing, Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted A Copy Of The Tribunal Order Rendered In The Case Of Smt. Sudha Loyalka Vs. Ito In Ita No. 399/Del/2017 Dated 18.07.2018 & Pointed Out That In This Case, It Was Held By The Tribunal That In That Case, It Is Not Mentioned By The Ao Or By Cit

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 Shree Ramareddy Ramesh, The ITO Ward 2 (2) (4), Gandhi Circle, Near Srirama Temple, Bengaluru. Newpet, Anekal - 562106 Vs. PAN : AGHPR5864L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 16.03.2020 Date of : 17.03.2020 Pronouncement O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the Order of CIT (A) – 3…

Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.10 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7371/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Essar Shipping Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T.-5(1)(2), 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. Mumbai-400034. Pan/Gir No.Aacce 3707 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…sar Ports Limited and A.Y. 2011-12 in case of assessee by the Assessing Officer in the scrutiny assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In order to support this proposition, reliance was placed on the following decisions; a) CIT v Sridev Enterprises [192 ITR 165 (Kar)] b) Escorts Ltd. v. ACIT [104 ITD 427 (Del)] c) Maiwa Cotton Spg. Mills v. ACIT [89 lTD 65 (TM)(Chd)] d) ITO v. J.M.P. Enterprises [101 lTD 324 (SMC)(Asr)] e) Virendra R. Gandhi v. ACIT (Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2004 with Tax Appeal No. 124 of 2005) dated 27.11.2014( (Gujarat High Court) 38. Since we have already directed the A.O. to allow…

Mecords India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1014/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.Y : 2011-12 :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 143(3)

…hen the said borrowings and utilization thereon were accepted as meant for business purposes in earlier years. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Sridev Enterprises reported in 192 ITR 165 (Kar) wherein it was held as under:- “4. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal. The status of the amount standing as outstanding due from Nalanda on the first day of the accounting year is the amount that stood outstanding on the last day of the previous accounting year; therefore, its nature and status cannot be different…

Venkatram Nanjundaiah Sridhar, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1770/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 57

…of the ld. counsel for the assessee and the ld. DR. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee besides reiterating the submissions made before the AO also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sridev Enterprises, 192 ITR 165 (Kar). In the aforesaid case, the issue was with regard to disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The case pertained to AY 1978-79. As on the first day of the relevant assessment year, there was an opening balance of loan and on the aforesaid opening balance in the earlier assessment year, deduction on account of interest was allowe…

Imperial Consultants & Securities Ltd. (Formerly Known As Omperial Consultants & Securities Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT -6 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3529/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Imperial Consultants & Dcit, Circle - 6(3)(1) Securities Ltd. Room No. 506, 5Th Floor (Formerly Imperial Consultants & Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Securities P. Ltd) Vs. Mumbai 400020 Manickam Complex, Gr. Floor 1/3, General Paters Roadchennai 600002 Pan – Aaacg4413G Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle - 6(3)(1) M/S. Imperial Consultants & Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Securities Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Essar House, 11, Kk Marg Mumbai 400020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034 Pan – Aaacg4413G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56Section 57

…tances. The learned A.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Virendra R. Gandhi vs. ACIT Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2004& Anr. Dated 27.11.2014. The ld AR also relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises [192 ITR 165 (Karn)] (ii) Escorts Ltd. vs. ACIT [104 ITD 427 (Del)] (iii) Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills vs. ACIT [89 ITD 65 (TM) (Chd)] (iv) ITO vs. J.M.P. Enterprises [101 ITD 324 (SMC) (Asr)] (v) Virendra R. Gandhi vs. ACIT [T.A No. 20 of 2004 with T.A. No. 124 of 2005 dated 27.11.2014 (Guj) (vi) ITO vs. Abhinand Investment Ltd. [ITA No. 982/Kol/2016 dated 07.02.…

Reliance Estate Agency, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 7729/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal And Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R

Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.7729/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2015-2016 M/s. Reliance Estate The Income Tax Officer, Agency, Faridabad. PAN AABFR2855B Ward – 2 (2), vs., C/o. M/s. RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, South Extn., Part-1, Faridabad. New Delhi – 110 049. (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Somil Aggarwal And Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates For Revenue : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 ORDER This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Far…

M/S Cifco Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD II), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3992/MUM/2001[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S Cifco Finance Ltd. Dcit (Osd Ii), Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Central Section, C.G. O. Unit-I, Dalal Street, Fort, Vs. Building Annexc, 101, Mumbai-400001. M.K. Marg, Pan: Aaacc1765F Mumbai-400020. Appellant Respondent Dcit (Osd Ii), M/S Cifco Finance Ltd. Central Section, C.G. O. Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Building Annexc, Vs. Unit-I, Dalal Street, Fort, 101, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaacc1765F Appellant Respondent M/S Cifco Finance Ltd. Dcit (Osd Ii), Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Central Section, C.G. O. Unit-I, Dalal Street, Fort, Vs. Building Annexc, Mumbai-400001. 101, M.K. Marg, Pan: Aaacc1765F Mumbai-400020. Appellant Respondent Dcit (Osd Ii), M/S Cifco Finance Ltd. Central Section, C.G. O. Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Building Annexc, Vs. Unit-I, Dalal Street, Fort, 101, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaacc1765F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vipul Joshi With Shri Mukul Pandya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Ashish Pophare (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Mukul Pandya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare (DR)

Section 254(1)

…ebit balances carried over from the preceding year, in respect of interest free loans advanced to M/s. Oceanic Investments Ltd; M/s Cifco Finance Ltd. b) relying upon the decision of the Hon 'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of err Vs. Sridev Enterprises 192 ITR 165 even though the facts in that case were totally different and were not applicable to the case of the assessee ; c) not appreciating the fact that interest free advances of Rs.1,77,00,000/- made to M/s. Oceanic Investment Ltd., in the immediate preceding previous year was in the nature of advance against purchase of property, and after the scrapin…

Mecords India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Mecords India Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer – 216, Swastik Chambers, 10(2)(4), Sion Trombay Road Aayakar Bhavan Chembur, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 071 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3324N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…hen the said borrowings and utilization thereon were accepted as meant for business purposes in earlier years. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Sridev Enterprises reported in 192 ITR 165 (Kar) wherein it was held as under:- 8 M/s. Mecords India Ltd. “4. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal. The status of the amount standing as outstanding due from Nalanda on the first day of the accounting year is the amount that stood outstanding on the last day of the previous accounting year; therefore, its nature and…

Shri Hiren Balkrishana Oza, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 603/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Shri Hiren Balkrishana Oza, I.T.O, K/302 Dec Castel, Vs. Ward-1(3)(2) B/H Hotel Topaz, Ahmedabad. Govindwadi, Isanpur, Ahmedabad-380063. Pan: Aanpo8935B

Section 250

…ance sheet of the assessee as on 31st March 2011 which is placed on pages 73 to 76 of the paper book. The learned AR to buttress his view also relied on the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sridev Enterprise reported in 192 ITR 165. 10.2 The learned AR further contended that there was sufficient own fund available with the assessee as on 31 March 2012 amounting to Rs. 23,36,904.00.00. Therefore there cannot be any addition on account of not charging interest on the advanced made to the so-called parties. 11. On the other hand, the learner DR vehemently supported the order…

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Osdz0 Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9087/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhthe Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Vs Dy.Cit (Osd), Circle 2(2), Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Mumbai Colaba, Mumbai-400 001 Pan : Aaact3957G Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Shri Kanchun Kaushal & Aliasgar Rampurawala Ar’S Respondent By Shri Anand Mohan Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17-06-2019 Date Of Pronouncement 06-09-2019

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…relied upon the following judgements:- 1. UCO Bank Ltd and Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd (237 ITR 889)(SC) 2. Mercantile Bank Ltd vs CIT (283 ITR 84)(SC) 3. Godhra Electricity Company vs CIT (225 ITR 746 (SC) 4. CIT Vs Sridev Enterprises 192 ITR 165 (Kar) 39. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 40. We have considered the submissions of the ld. representatives of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The AO while passing the draft assessment order made addition of Rs. 37,45,000/- by taking view that no ev…