CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan

248 ITR 449Supreme Court of India2001#1715 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.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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 250Section 57Section 57(iii)Section 11Section 12Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

tax recovery officersection 57(iii)section 36(1)(ii)section 51section 57interest free advancesmistake apparent from recordcomputer softwaresection 10aacommercial expediencysection 10asection 36(1)(iii)

Judgments citing CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan

Guru Pavan Ranga, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 677/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

…hat only net interest income was taxable and disallowed 70 per cent of interest 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…

Anirudh Murthy Ranga, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 676/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

…hat only net interest income was taxable and disallowed 70 per cent of interest 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…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Wind Power Sankonahatti Athni Private Limied, Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 34/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…nd not on interest income earned on share holders funds kept as fixed deposits with Banks. Interest earned on short term deposits of share capital cannot be set off against interest paid on capital borrowed for setting up Industry (CIT vs V.P. Gopinathan (SC) 248 ITR 449) 11. The assessee had not offered any explanation as to why interest earned on ICDs and capitalized should not be taxed. The assessee has not explained the same. Under any circumstances, and in any form or substance, the same is taxable u/s 55 of IT Act, as 'Income from other sources'. 12. In the light of foregoing discussion and in view of sett…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Wind Energy Halagali Benchi Private Limied, Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 33/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…nd not on interest income earned on share holders funds kept as fixed deposits with Banks. Interest earned on short term deposits of share capital cannot be set off against interest paid on capital borrowed for setting up Industry (CIT vs V.P. Gopinathan (SC) 248 ITR 449) 11. The assessee had not offered any explanation as to why interest earned on ICDs and capitalized should not be taxed. The assessee has not explained the same. Under any circumstances, and in any form or substance, the same is taxable u/s 55 of IT Act, as 'Income from other sources'. 12. In the light of foregoing discussion and in view of sett…

Shri. Chandrakant R Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (A)-30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 380/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodshri Chandrakant R. Agrawal Pr. Commissioner Of 61, Sadhna Daftary Road, Income-Tax (Central) -30, R. No. 541, 5Th Floor, Malad East, Vs. Mumbai – 400097 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan – Aabpa8047N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 57

…on the loan raised (on security of the FDR‟s) against the interest received on FDR‟s appeared to be very convincing. However, we find that the issue is no more res integra and had been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Dr. V.P Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC). We find that the Hon‟ble Apex Court while reversing the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in CIT Vs. Dr. V.P Gopinathan (1998) 229 ITR 801 (Ker), had held, that interest on loan taken by the assessee from the bank on security of fixed deposit could not be reduced from his income by way of interest on the fixed deposit placed by him…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e assessee company has claimed certain. expenditure which has been allowed by the AO without considering if such expenditure falls within purview of section 57 and which is not in accordance with decision of the Apex Court in case of Dr. V.P. Gopinath Vs CIT (248 ITR 449). 18.2 During the year under consideration, the assessee company had given inter corporate deposits of JNR 2,703 crores on which it had earned interest income amounting to r.s.2,118,358,285. The inter-corporate deposits were made out of proceeds from issuance of interest bearing debentures of INR 2,750 crores to-Yes Bank and Axis Bank in respect…

Essar House Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Cir) 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1930/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Essar House Ltd., Asst Cit (Cir) 6(2)(2), Essar House, R.No.504, 5Th Floor, 11 K.K. Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 034 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacj2883P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Various Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Payable Towards Defeasance Of Sales Tax Liability Amounting To Rs.226,07,45,800. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Interest Liability Cannot Be Treated As Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Earning Or Making Income By Way Of Discounting Charges On The Zero Coupon Bonds (Zcbs) & Consequently , The Same Is Not Eligible For Deduction U/S 57(Iii) Of The Act Against The Income By Way Of Discounting Charges On Zcbs. 3. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Transaction Is Not A Bonafide In Nature & Interest Liability Was Arisen From Adoption Of A Colorable Device By The Appellant For Avoidance Of Tax.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 57

…. The AO came to the conclusion that the transactions between two group concerns were entered into to evade the taxes and therefore were colourable transactions especially in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopinathan 248 ITR 449(SC) and thus disallowed the interest expenditure. 4 M/s. Essar House Ltd. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under: 21. In the written submission, the appellant explained the background facts with regard to this transaction. It was stated that EOL was entitled to collect sales tax and defer the pa…

Sri Alok Agrawal, Sundergarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 160/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and relied many judgments which has been calculated in his revisonary order as under :- i) CIT Vs. Walfort Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC); ii) CIT Vs. V.P.Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC); iii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); and Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs. S.P.Jain (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) iv) 5. Against the above order passed by the Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR at the outset of hearing he did not press on the legal ground raised by the as…

Sri Alok Agarwal, Sundergarh vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 319/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and relied many judgments which has been calculated in his revisonary order as under :- i) CIT Vs. Walfort Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC); ii) CIT Vs. V.P.Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC); iii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); and Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs. S.P.Jain (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) iv) 5. Against the above order passed by the Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR at the outset of hearing he did not press on the legal ground raised by the as…

Anjana Vinayak, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, W-1, Yamunanagar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 247/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jul 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Raman Kumar Goyal, CCIT(Retd)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT DR
Section 57

…ng of the ITAT Agra in the case of Raj Kumari Agarwal wherein it was held an such expenditure is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning from interest on fixed deposits, whereas there is no such discussion in the case of Dr. V.P. Gopinathan 248 ITR 449 7. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, modify and withdraw any other grounds of appeal before or during the appellate proceedings. From the aforesaid grounds it would be clear that the only grievance of the assessee relates to the confirmation of disallowance of claim for deduction under s…

Smt. Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy, Mangaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1716/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt.Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…he learned DR submitted that the SLP filed by the assessee before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP in TS-324- SC-2014 has been dismissed. 6.3 The learned DR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. V.P.Gopinathan [(2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC)] . 7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the assessee made fixed deposit with various banks amounting to Rs.15 crore. At 14 IT(IT)A Nos.1715 & 1716/Bang/2019 Smt.Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy. the same time, the assessee availed loan amounting to Rs.2.5 crore from State Bank of India an…

Smt. Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1715/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt.Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…he learned DR submitted that the SLP filed by the assessee before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP in TS-324- SC-2014 has been dismissed. 6.3 The learned DR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. V.P.Gopinathan [(2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC)] . 7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the assessee made fixed deposit with various banks amounting to Rs.15 crore. At 14 IT(IT)A Nos.1715 & 1716/Bang/2019 Smt.Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy. the same time, the assessee availed loan amounting to Rs.2.5 crore from State Bank of India an…

Nasreen Amin Rajwani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 23 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 153/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. M. H. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Dharm Veer Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 58(1)(a)

…s. Let us give an illustration here. The query is “If an assessee earns interest on FDR with a bank and also pays interest to the bank on loan taken against the FDR, can he reduce the interest paid from the interest income?” In CIT v. Dr V. Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that interest received by the assessee from the bank on a fixed deposit is income in his hands and there could be no deduction therefrom unless there is a law permitting such deduction. The interest on a loan taken by the assessee on the contrary on the security of the fixed deposit did not go to reduce th…

Hazaribag Ranchi Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6696/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negihazaribagh Ranchi Vs. Ito-14(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Expressway Ltd. The Il&Fs Financial Center Aaykar Bhawan Plot No.C-22, G Block M.K.Road Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aacch2490J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 234BSection 56(1)

…i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The edifice of the submission of the assesse is founded on wrong notion. At this point of time, it needs to be mentioned that by virtue of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr.V.P. Gopinathan 248 ITR 449 (SC) the assessee does not become entitled for deduction u/s 57(iii) in the back drop of facts of the case. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan 248 ITR 449(SC) the assessee doe sot become entitled for deduction u/s 57(iii) in the back drop of facts of the case. In the case before the Hon’ble Sup…

Late Shri D.K. Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5350/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. : 2011-12 LATE SHRI D.K. JAIN, Vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 54(1), L/H MS. USHA JAIN, NEW DELHI D-19, NIZAMUDDIN EAST, NEW DELHI – 110 013 (PAN: AAKPJ4559P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, CA Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 27.7.2016 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. 2…

Pluto Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5872/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Pluto Securities Private Ltd. Dcit Circle- 10(3)(2) L-1/110, The Summit, Near Room No. 509, Sawan Club, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacp8330R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram Sr Advocate with Shri Rahul Kakkani AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

…erein similar issue was examined. The ld. AR further submits that case law relied by ld. CIT(A) in Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com ITA No. 5368 Mum 2018-Bharat S. Kanungo. 167 (Bom. HC), CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan [2001] 248 ITR 449 (SC), Smt. Padmavati Jai Krishna v. Addl. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 176 (SC), Poona Club Ltd. [2018] 90 taxman.com 422 (Pune Trib.) are not applicable on the facts of the present case. 6. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Tribunal in Triumph International Finance India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2016] 161 ITD 46…

Sun Infra, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 4988/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Sun Infra, The Income Tax Officer 14(3)(4), 288, 3Rd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400002 Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Abjfs8245H

For Appellant: Shri Vallabhdas D. Parmar (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.K Singh (Sr.DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 24

…ed as business Income. 5. On the other hand the Ld. departmental representative relying on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are based on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. V Gopinathan 248 ITR 449 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Greatways P Ltd. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly held that since over draft facility was availed by the assessee for business purposes, direct nexus between the interest income on the said FDRs and the interest expenses is not e…

Asst CIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar House Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6980/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 14A

…usion that the transactions between two group concerns were entered into to evade the taxes and therefore are colourable transactions M/s. Essar House Pvt. Ltd. especially in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopinathan 248 ITR 449 and thus disallowed the interest expenditure. 11. The Ld. CIT(A), in the appellate proceedings, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under: “8.3 I have carefully perused the assessment order, copy of balance sheet, profit and loss account and submission of the appellant. On carefully perusal of the profit & loss a…

M/S. Prestige Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 4772/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Arun Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 57

…tely earlier assessment years viz. 2006-07 and AY 2007-08, learned AO allowed the interest expenses and for the first time disallowed the same for the AY 2008-09 by applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan, 248 ITR 449, for the proposition that the interest received by the assessee on his fixed deposits cannot be reduced by the amount of interest paid on the loan taken on security of such deposit as there is no such provision in law, and also DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) for the principle that interest on capital borrowed for acquisiti…

M/S Prestige Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 3507/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Arun Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 57

…tely earlier assessment years viz. 2006-07 and AY 2007-08, learned AO allowed the interest expenses and for the first time disallowed the same for the AY 2008-09 by applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan, 248 ITR 449, for the proposition that the interest received by the assessee on his fixed deposits cannot be reduced by the amount of interest paid on the loan taken on security of such deposit as there is no such provision in law, and also DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) for the principle that interest on capital borrowed for acquisiti…