How many judgments cite CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan?

66 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan (248 ITR 449), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 57, Section 57(iii), Section 11, Section 12.

CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan

248 ITR 449Supreme Court of India2001#1735 most cited

What is CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan authority for?

Interest paid on a loan taken against the security of a fixed deposit cannot be set off against or reduced from the interest income earned on that fixed deposit. The Income-tax Act does not permit such netting.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan · 248 ITR 449 · Section 57 · deductibility of interest · loan against fixed deposit · interest income on fixed deposit · netting of interest · income from other sources · set-off of interest · interest on loan against FD

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 57 Section 57(iii)Section 11 Section 12 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

tax recovery officer section 57(iii)section 36(1)(ii)section 51 section 57 interest free advances mistake apparent from record computer software section 10aa commercial expediency section 10a section 36(1)(iii)

Judgments citing CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan

BANI BROTO BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 58(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1095/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1095/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bani Broto Banerjee ACIT, Circle-58(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ABPPB0424P Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : Santanu Ghosh, (Sr. D.R). Date of concluding the hearing : 11-August-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 06-November-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax…

GLOBAL TRADEX LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS NAMCO STEEL PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 7(1)(1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6544/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. RuchiraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande – Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…nd it should be offered for tax. The part of interest earned by the assessee should be offered in the total income, so the adjustment is not permitted. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dr.V.P. Gopinathan ( 2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC) wherein it is held that interest on a loan taken against a fixed deposit cannot be set off against interest earned on that fixed deposit; there is no provision permitting such netting. The Ld. DR thus relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. We find…

SHANTILAL BACHUBHAI RITA,GOREGAON WEST vs. ITO ,WARD 31(1)(9),MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2356/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshantilal Bachubhai Rita Vs Ito, Ward 31(1)(9), Mumbai C-33, Sai Baba Enclave Room No.536, 5H Floor, Kautilya Building No.3, S.V. Road, Near Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Citi Centre, Goregaon West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 104 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aetpr2071R Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.D. ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangerpatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRINARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shantilal Bachubhai Rita vs ITO, Ward 31(1)(9), Mumbai C-33, Sai Baba Enclave Room NO.536, 5h Floor, Kautilya Building No.3, S.V. Road, Near Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block, Citi Centre, Goregaon West, Bandra Kurla complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 104 Mumbai-400 051 PAN: AETPR2071R RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S.D. Chheda Respondent by : Shri Bhangerpatil Pushkaraj Ramesh Sr. AR Date of hearing : 02/04/2025 Date of pronouncement : 09/04/2025 O R D E R Per…

AMALSAD VIBHAG VIVISH KARYAKARI SAHKARI KHEDUT MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.PCIT, VALSAD

ITA 491/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2024 Ays: 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Amalsad Vibhag Vividh Principal Commissioner Of Karyakari Sahkari Khedut Income Tax, Valsad, 301/3Rd Vs. Mandli Ltd., At & Po. Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Amalsad, Tal. Gandevi, Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 Dist. Navsari-396 310 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaa 1043 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 80P

…the AO had failed to make the necessary inquiries or verification required under the law, and had passed the order without applying the correct legal provisions. The Ld. PCIT relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinath, 248 ITR 449 (SC) ITA No.491/SRT/2024 /AY 18-19 Amalsad Vibhag Vividh Karyakari Sahkari Khedut Mandli Ltd. where it was held that interest on loan taken by assessee from bank on security of fixed deposits (FD) could not be deducted from interest income on FD placed with the bank. Hence, clause(d) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act is applicable in…

INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 760/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

…centered towards the mutual interest of the members. However, as far assessee is concerned, the assessee has earned bank interest from the surplus funds available with it. (ii) Reliance is placed on Supreme Court decision in case of CIT VsDr. V.P.Gopinathan 248 ITR 449 which held as under- Income from other sources-Interest on fixed deposit-Deductibility of interest on loan taken on the security of FDs-Amount paid by assessee as interest on loan that he took from the bank on the security of fixed deposit could not be reduced from his income by way of interest on the fixed deposit placed by him in the bank Held:…

SHANTIBEN K RITA,GOREGAON WEST vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(4), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailshantiben K Rita, 1601, Laburnum Tower, Sv Road, Goregaon West, ……………. Appellant Mumbai - 400104 Pan – Aecpr3455A V/S Ito, Ward-41(4)(4), ……………. Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai Maharashtra Assessee By : Shri Surji D. Chheda, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Surji D. Chheda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

…y basis for restricting the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee under section 57(iii) of the Act. 9. During the hearing, the learned DR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan, reported in (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC). From the perusal of the aforesaid decision, we find that in the facts of the case, the taxpayer did not rest its case upon the provisions of section 57(iii) of the Act. Therefore, we find that the reliance placed by the learned DR on the aforesaid decision is completely misplaced. 10. The learned DR also placed reliance upon the decision o…

AVANTHA CONSULTING SERVICES LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1239/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Upvan Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 57

…remuneration, salary, legal expenses, board meeting expenses, Director sitting fees cannot be attributable to the interest earned from the fixed deposits. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.P. Gopinathan 248 ITR 449 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that there should be a nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income earned. 7 Avantha Consulting Services Ltd. Hence, the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we hereby affirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open…

PICRIC LTD vs. ITO WARD 14 (4),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with directions contained in para 22 above

ITA 4115/DEL/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80H

…n under section 10B, and stating that the Tribunal in its order (supra) has fortified the stand of the Revenue that interest income could not be said to be derived from the against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. V.P. Gopinath 248 ITR 449 (SC), the Ld. AO proceeded to compute the eligible amount of deduction under section 10B at Rs. 1,82,59,833/- resulting in the disallowance of interest income of Rs. 19,24,528/- as also other income of Rs. 21,08,000/-. 4.2 The facts relating to the Ground No. 2 are that the Ld. AO found that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 21,67,878/- unde…

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 164/VNS/2019[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

For Appellant: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…Srivastava 3. [2006] 280 ITR 617 (All.) KisanSahkariChini Mills. Ltd. 4. [2007] 105 ITD 1 (Delhi) (Special Bench), Allied Construction 5. [2010] 325 ITR 201 (Kerela), T.O. Abraham & Co. 6. [2017] 163 ITD 46 (Visakhapatnam-Trib.), G. Raja GopalaRao 7. [2001] 248 ITR 449 (SC), Dr. V.P. Gopinathan” 5. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that interest earned from bank deposit / has to be assessed under the head income from other sources which has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Similarly, the Hon'bleKerela High Court in the case…

JATINDER KUMAR SURI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6808/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 194JSection 44ASection 69C

…e decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Madras Fertilizers 122 ITR 139 (Mad.); Hon’ble Calcutta High Court decision in CIT vs. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. 118 ITR 1005(Cal.) as also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.P. Gopinathan 248 ITR 449(SC). Following the decisions (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) recorded his finding in para 5.9 of his order as under:- “5.9 It is clearly seen that the aforesaid decisions of the honorable Supreme Court and High Courts do not affirm the decision taken y Agra Tribunal. Another distinguishing factor in the present case is the assessee has, at no point of t…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1914/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ces". 3.1.4 After having decided to assess such receipts under the head "Income from Other Sources", only expenditure incurred to earn such income can be allowed as deduction to arrive at the net income from such receipts as held in CIT Vs V.P Gopinathan (Se) 248 ITR 449. In this case, as admitted by the assessee, only surplus funds were deposited in bank and with sister concerns and hence there is no interest outgo to earn such income. Since the interest is directly credited to the bank account of assessee by these deposit holders, there is no administrative expenditure also incurred by the assessee to earn such…

DCIT- CC-1(2), MUMBAI vs. NIRANJAN L. HIRANANDANI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1896/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1896 & 1895/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan M. KachaFor Respondent: Shri K. Gopal, Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 57

…Rs. 3,10,67,248/-, not for earning the interest income on fixed deposits as the loan was obtained on the strength of security on fixed deposit made in the Bank. Thus, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. V. P. Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC), Ld. AO disallowed the interest income of Rs. 1,47,76,851/- received on FD-OBC. 7. Ld. CIT(A) held that assessee has adjusted interest paid on ICICI loan against interest from FDR income, to the extent of FDR income and has not claimed remaining the amount of interest paid. 6 I.T.A. No. 1896 & 1895/Mum/2021 Shri Niranjan L. Hiranandani Thu…

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…terest expenditure incurred can be allowed under section 36 (1) (iii). The appellant has also submitted that no Interest has been debited to the P&L account and only net interest has been credited. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. VP Gopiathan 248 ITR 449 has held that earning of interest and paying of interest are two different transactions. The interest received by the assessee from the bank was income in his hands and it could stand diminished only if there is provision in law which permits such diminution. This issue has come up in the appellant's own case for the assessment years 2009-10 and…

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 538/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 537/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. POSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 423/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.09/Ctk/2020 (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/Shri A.K.SabatFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (

Section 250

…short-term investment of money was income from other sources, no matter the amount invested had been borrowed by the assessee for purchase of plant and machinery. 3. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Dr. V. P. Gopinathan [2001] 248 ITR 449. The assessee had in that case invested money in a fixed deposit and earned interest on the same. It had also borrowed a loan and paid interest on the same. The question was whether interest earned by the assessee could be diminished by setting of interest paid by the assessee on the amount borrowed. Repelling the contention that it could be so d…

M/S. NITESH ESTATES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. PAN: AABCN9267C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT Revenue by (DR) Date of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against or…

INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD II(1), JALANDHAR

ITA 234/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 25Section 57

…he return of income for the relevant assessment year which is exigible to tax. The income so declared by the assessee is not hypothetical income. 7.5 In the case of “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. V.P. Gopinathan on 27 February, 2001”, AIR 2001 SC 1390, 2001 248 ITR 449 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that- 6. It was not disputed, as it could not be, that if the assessee had taken a loan from another bank and paid interest thereon his real income would not diminish to the extent thereof. The only question then is: does it make any difference that he took the loan from the same bank in which he had placed the fi…

ARJUN M RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 692/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 263Section 54FSection 57

…terest income was taxable and disallowed 70 per cent of interest Page 15 of 22 paid on loan corresponding to part of loan used for house construction. The Rajasthan High Court held that in view of Supreme Court’s decision in CIT v. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan [2001] 248 ITR 449/116 Taxman 489, ITO’s action was justified and called for no interference. - H.H. Maharajakumari Meenakshideviavaru v. CIT, 150 ITR 247 (Kar) where it was held that the deduction of excess interest by the bank was effected on account of the premature termination of the fixed deposits and had no connection with the interest earned by the assessee…

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4