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

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Neelkamal Realtors & Erectors (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2128/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Neelkamal Realtors & Erectors The Dcit-5(2)(1), (India) Private Limited, Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, 265-E, Bellasis Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Neelkamal Realtors & Erectors Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), (India) Private Limited, R. No. 571, Aayakar Bhavan, 265-E, Bellasis Road, Opp. Best M.K. Road, Vs. Bus Depot, Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji (Ar) Shri Chaitnya Anjaria/Sh. Saravanan Revenue By : (Drs) Date Of Hearing: 30/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji (AR)For Respondent: (DRs)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…same. The Ld. counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 409 ITR 545 (Bom.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises 192 ITR 165 (Kar.), submitted that since the revenue has allowed the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee in previous and subsequent years, and since there is no material change in the facts of the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the disallowance made by the AO. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. departmental representative (DR) relying…

Neelkamal Realtors & Erectors (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1942/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji (AR)For Respondent: (DRs)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

M/S. Hella India Lighting Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1109/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Hella India Lighting Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-13, Badarpur Extension, Circle-11(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacj0101G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd December, 2014 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 11(1), New Delhi U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Automobile Components Including Head Lamps, Tail Lamps, Horns Switches, Bulbs, Sundry Lamps, Wiper Arms & Wiper Blades. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 5Th October, 2010 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.1,46,71,148/-. Since The Assessee Has Undertaken International Transactions With Its Ae, The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40a

…lowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) is not justified. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Givo Ltd. and various other decisions filed in the case law compilation. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.); ii) 295 CTR 448 (P&H); iii) 134 ITR 219 (Cal); and iv) 135 ITR 698. 26. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the order of the A.O./TPO/DRP. 18 27. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the A.O. and DRP. We find the Assessing Officer, in the instant case, invoking the provis…

ACIT, C-7, Ludhiana vs. M/S Franklin Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1230/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1230/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए ”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH "ीमती "दवा "संह, "याय"क सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1230/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The A.C.I.T., M/s Franklin Laboratories बनाम Circle-7, (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana. 386/1, Maharani Jhansi Road, Ghumar Mandi, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACF2313C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Ajay Jain, CA राज"व…

Smt. Deepti Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 4944/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Deepti Agarwal, Vs Acit, C/O M/S Pra Taxindia, Circle-53(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aampa0573C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th July, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal No.1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deepti Agarwal, Vs ACIT, C/o M/s PRA Taxindia, Circle-53(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAMPA0573C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue by : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18th July, 2016 of the CIT(A)-18…

Smt. Pragnaben N. Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, Sr.DR

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 37(1)Section 57

…made in respect of interest paid on such borrowed funds in,earlier years, then in subsequent years, wherein interest has been paid on opening balances of such loans, interest expenses cannot be disallowed. Reliance is placed on: > CIT vs. Sridev Enterprise - 192 ITR 165 (Kar) > Virendra R. Gandhi vs. ACIT (Guj HC) (Annexure "A"); In the light of the above, underlying interest expenses paid on opening balances deserve to be allowed. As regards concession by the AR for such addition during the assessment proceedings, it is a settled law that any inadvertent concession made by AR of an assessee is not binding on as…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 820/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

…f application made to the CIT for approval but it was stated that approval was obtained and it has been lost. The revenue has allowed such deduction to the assessee in the earlier years. The learned jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sridev Enterprises, 192 ITR 165 held that consistency and definiteness of approach by the revenue is necessary in the matter of recognizing the nature of an amount maintained by the Assessee so that the basis of concluded asst. would not be ignored without actually reopening the asst. The learned Madras high court in the case of CIT Vs. Taxtool Company Ltd, 257 ITR 39 allowed t…

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 802/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Abn Tower & Transmission Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1519/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Abn Tower & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aajcs 4837 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…opening balance of unsecured loans by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act in the year under appeal. We find that the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Sridev Enterprises reported in 192 ITR 165 (Kar). We find that the reliance placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) is very well founded. We also find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs J.J.Development (P) Ltd reported in 2016 (6) TMI 804 – Calcutta High Court in ITA No. 519/200…

M/S. Indiabulls Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1546/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…agreed basis. It was, therefore, submitted that no disallowance of interest should be made in respect of the securities purchased during the preceding years. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.) and certain other decisions canvassing the proposition that if the assessee’s claim in the previous assessment years regarding interest on borrowed capital has been accepted, the Revenue cannot make disallowance of interest in the succeeding years 7 on the opening balance of such investments. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon…

Gulita Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 91/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…id on loans borrowed for genuine purposes cannot be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO further referring to various judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs SridevEnterprises 192 ITR 165 (Kar) submitted that the assessee has paid interest on such loans in the earlier year and the department has accepted, therefore, without there being any change in facts, there is no reason for the AO to disallow interest paid on loan during the impugned assessment year. Once interest is allowed in previous year and if there is no change in the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jai Krishan Estate Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4082/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K. Saini & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jai Krishan Estate Circle-3(1), C.R. Building, Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi A-26, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi Pan :Aabcj2911R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Saurabh Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2018 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi, Dated 22.04.2015, On The Following Two Effective Grounds: 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Interest Free Loan Advance Of Rs.1,18,42,528/- Given By The Assessee. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,82,26,810/- Made U/S 14A R/W Rule 8D Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…t this juncture cannot take a different stand. There should be consistency and definiteness while adopting the approach by the Revenue. The CIT (A) has taken into consideration the judgment of Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. Sridevi Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165. The CIT (A) has also taken note of S. Builders Limited Vs. CIT, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if amount is advanced to the subsidiary or associated company or any other party as a measure of commercial expediency, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 36(l)(iii). The CIT(A) also quoted following judgment: 4 i) CIT vs. GIVO Ltd. (IT…

Ashar Realators, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1914/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1914/M/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Ashar Realtors बिधम/ Acit, Circle-23(2), 2Nd Ashar It Park, Gr. Floor, Floor, C-10, Bandra Kurla Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Complex, Bandra Mumbai- Industrial Estate, Pokhran 400051. Rd No.2, Thane (W) 400601 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfa1708J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1914/M/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Ashar Realtors बिधम/ ACIT, Circle-23(2), 2nd Ashar IT Park, Gr. Floor, Floor, C-10, Bandra Kurla Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Complex, Bandra Mumbai- Industrial Estate, Pokhran 400051. Rd No.2, Thane (W) 400601 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHFA1708J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rahul Hakani (AR) Department by: Shri V. Vidyadhar (DR) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 01.03.2018 घोषणाकीता…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 86/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos.409/Coch/2014 and 85 & 86/Coch/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Liberty Marketers, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 44/356,Liberty Towers, Income-tax, Circle-2(2), Kochi. Manapatti Parambu Road, Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 017. [PAN:AABFL 6579Q] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil D. Nair, Adv. Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 02/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 03/04/2018 O R D E R Per Bench: These…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 85/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

M/S.Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 409/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

ITO, WD-13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Abhinand Investment Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 982/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 982/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Abhinand Investment Ltd. [Pan: Aacca 7452 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 982/Kol/2016) Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S Abhinand Investment Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 7452 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri V.N. Purohit, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145A

…ake different stand during the year under appeal when they had accepted the borrowing being used for business purposes in the earlier year. This ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sridev Enterprices reported in 192 ITR 165 (Kar.). 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings and respectfully following the decision referred to supra we have no hesitation in directing the Ld. AO to delete the disallowance made in the sum of Rs. 5,31,000/- towards interest paid on borrowings. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objections are allowed. 13.…

Bharath Beedi Works Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 is also dismissed

ITA 1903/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 43B

…8-99 and 2006-07 and the same is enclosed as ANNEXURE — D for your reference. Further, the assessing officer has to follow the consistency in this issue while concluding the assessment as held by various judicial precedences. (i) ITO vs Sri Dev Enterprise — 192 ITR 165 (ii) CIT vs South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd — 293 ITR 237 ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FOR AY 2001-2002, ITA NO 3769/04 Ground No. 2, 3 & 4 - Restricting interest to 18% as against 21% (same as 1998-99) Ground No 5 — Penalty on delay in payment of entry tax The assessee has not pressed the above ground. Ground No. 6 — Depreciation on Lorries bein…

Virender Kumar Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6293/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Virender Kumar Gupta, Nai Anaj Mandi, Ward-4(5), Gurgaon. Farrukhnagar. Pan: Abtpg 0018L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : S/Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & P.K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-I, Gurgaon, Vide Order Dated 14.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…past assessment years, the interest expenditure had been allowed, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to disallow the said expenditure in the year under consideration. The Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sridev Enterprises, (1991) 192 ITR 165 has held that a departure from a 7 finding in respect of deductions permitted during the past years would result in a contradictory finding. 5. We are also of the view that it would not be equitable to permit the Revenue to take a different stand in respect of expenses which were the subject matter of previous years' assessments. In our opinion,…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Ravi Goyal, New Delhi

In the result, all the 05 Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 692/DEL/2012[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…ied with and, therefore the assessee company was entitled to full allowance of the amount of interest paid by it on borrowed capital" Reliance may also be placed upon the following cases: CIT Vs Bombay Samachar Limited 74 ITR 723 CIT Vs. Sridev Enterprises 192 ITR 165 Dail Investments Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 73 TTJ 22" {13.1} It is seen that this issue was the subject of appeal in Assessment Years 1991-92 and 1992-93. In the order for the Assessment Year 1992-93 of the CIT (A) XXIII dated 31.03.2011, this issue was held in favour of the appellant, after considering the order of the ITAT…