CIT v. Srishti Securities (P) Ltd.

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

…ofession”. 12.2. Ld. CIT DR also pointed out that decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Concentrix Services AY 2008-09 (supra) relied upon its own earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. Srishti Securities (P) Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 498 (Bom) wherein the ‘purpose test’ was dealt with prior to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment (supra). On this contention of ld. CIT DR, we observe and note that decision of Concentrix Services (supra) dated 04.09.2019 is subsequent to the judgement in Maxopp Investment (supra) which is dated 12.02.2018. Also, we…

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

…ofession”. 12.2. Ld. CIT DR also pointed out that decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Concentrix Services AY 2008-09 (supra) relied upon its own earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. Srishti Securities (P) Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 498 (Bom) wherein the ‘purpose test’ was dealt with prior to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment (supra). On this contention of ld. CIT DR, we observe and note that decision of Concentrix Services (supra) dated 04.09.2019 is subsequent to the judgement in Maxopp Investment (supra) which is dated 12.02.2018. Also, we…

DCIT(CC)-7(3), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Churchgate vs. Macrotech Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2017-18 Dcit (Cc)-7(3, Mumbai Macrotech Developers Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400020. Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra Pan: Aaacl 1490 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2025

…ch, Mumbai vide order dated 30 July 2019 upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A)-38. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced as under- “10. We have gone through the decision rendered by jurisdictional High Court in the case of Srishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. (321 ITR 498) dated 22.01.2009, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the object or the purpose of the capital borrowed whether it is for the purpose of acquisition of stock-in-trade or expenditure of capital nature will not be relevant and as long as the capital borrowed is for the purpose of business, the same will have to be allowed. The investment in t…

Tata Chemicals Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year: 2017-18 Tata Chemicals Limited Pcit-2, Mumbai

…lso placed reliance on the various judicial pronouncements as placed in the paper book. He particularly referred the case of Concentrix Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 778 of 2017] dated 04.09.2019, Phil Corporation (244 CTR 226) (Bom HC), Srishti Securities (321 ITR 498/183 Taxman 159) (BOM) & Tata Industries Limited 82 taxmann.com 227 (ITA 4630/M/2016). 5. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act. He submitted that order passed by the assessing officer was rightly held by the ld. PCIT as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the issue of allowability…

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

…R for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein 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 sect…

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

…R for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein 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 sect…

Shree Balaji Umber Properties P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-13(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleshree Balaji Umber Properties Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 13(2)(2) Unit No. 201, A Wing Mumbai - 400020 Fulcrum Sahar Road Next To Hyaat Regency, Andheri (E) Mumbai -400099 Pan: Aaacu9207C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Ms. Akshita Bhandari Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

…purpose of purchase of assets in line with its objects and the business carried on by it the interest on such loans is a deductible expenditure. In this regard, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s Srishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. - (2010) 321 ITR 498 (Bom)has held that the main object of the Assessee company was to purchase, acquire, hold, sell, invest, dispose and otherwise deal in shares, stocks, etc. and the Assessee had borrowed loans and utilized them for purchasing shares which were held as investments, the interest on such loans was allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Lik…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sonsltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed to that extent

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

…). In the above background, Ld. AR, in support of admissibility of deduction u/s 36(1)(iii), 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 i…

DCIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit- 2(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Financial Room No.552, Solutions Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 106, A/B, Makers Chambers M.K.Road, Mumbai Iii Jamanalal Bajaj Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaar7043R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.216/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6387/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S. Tata Motors Vs. Dcit- 2(3)(1) Financial Solutions Ltd., Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 106, A/B, Makers Chambers Iii M.K.Road, Mumbai Jamanalal Bajaj Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaar7043R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…us in detail hereinabove. We find that the reliance placed by the ld. AR on the following decisions to support its case are very well founded:- a) Bombay Steam Navigation Co. vs. CIT reported in 56 ITR 0052 b) CIT vs. Srishti Secutiries (P) Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 498 (Bom HC) c) CIT vs. Aditya Popcorn Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.82/2014 dated 10/10/2017 (Rajasthan High Court) d) Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Magma Fincorp Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 165 ITD 375. The operative portions of respective judgments are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. 3.14. In view of our aforesaid observations and in the fac…

Pawansut Dwellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K Pradhan, Am

…irrelevant, and all that the assessee has to show is that the borrowed funds were used for its business purpose in the relevant year, therein relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Srishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 498 (Bom). Also, reliance was placed by the Ld. A.R on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai “C” Bench in the case of Chhaganlal Khimji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 7629/Mum/2013, dated 23.09.2015). Further, the Ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Lok Holdings (2009) 308 ITR 356 (Bom). The Ld. A.R ta…

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 1998-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 1998-99 The Dcit-2(3)(2), M/S Sheba Properties Limited, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, C/O Telco Nanavati Mahalaya, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 3Rd Floor, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaecs0591F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2018

…On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the interest on the borrowed fund under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 relying on the judgment in the case of CIT v. Srishti Securities (P) Ltd.[2010] 321 ITR 498, without appreciating the factual position in the said case was that the assessee was an investment company whereas in the present case, it was not the business of the assessee as held by the Assessing Officer. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the interest on the borrowed fund…

Af-Taab Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes while Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1807/Mum/2011 & 1812/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08)

…f the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We do not think that the question proposed by Mr. Suresh Kumar is a substantial question of law.” The decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Srishti Securities Private Limited reported in (2010) 321 ITR 498(Bom.) wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has held that interest on funds borrowed by an investment company for making investment in shares which may be held as investment or stock in trade or for the purposes of controlling interest in other companies shall be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). . The assessee has voluntarily suo motu disallowed…

ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Aftab Investment Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes while Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1807/Mum/2011 & 1812/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08)

…f the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We do not think that the question proposed by Mr. Suresh Kumar is a substantial question of law.” The decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Srishti Securities Private Limited reported in (2010) 321 ITR 498(Bom.) wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has held that interest on funds borrowed by an investment company for making investment in shares which may be held as investment or stock in trade or for the purposes of controlling interest in other companies shall be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). . The assessee has voluntarily suo motu disallowed…