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#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.

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 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

M/S Mittaso Projects Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3506/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…

Maya Goel, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 4696/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Somil AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 57

…/Del./2018 Mrs. Maya Goel, Ghaziabad. exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income on FDRs. The A.O. however, did not accept the contention of assessee and following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V.P. Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC) rejected the claim of assessee. 3. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) and same submissions have been reiterated. It is submitted that assessee has obtained interest bearing loans from these two ladies on which interest has been paid and since these loans were used to make investment in bank FDRs, such interest paymen…

Parikshit Mandir Sial, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)- 4(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri, G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 377/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri. Parikshit Mandir Sial Ito (I.T)-4(2)(2), Mumbai 501, Sea Goddess Green Field Air India Building., Nariman बिधम/ Estate, A.B Nair Road, Opp. Juhu Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Post Office, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 057. स्थामीरेखासं./जीआइआयसं ./ Pan/Gir No. Avjps5311E (अऩीराथी/Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri.Reepal Tralashawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 57

…he same was rightly disallowed by the lower authorities. The ld. D.R Shri. Parikshit Mandir Sial Vs. ITO (I.T)-4(2)(2), Mumbai 4 in order to fortify his aforesaid contention relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i). CIT Vs. V.P Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC) (ii). Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna Bs. Addl. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 176 (SC) (iii). CIT Vs. Amritaben R. Shah (1999) 238 ITR 777 (Bom) (iv). Saluja Farms Vs. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 172 (Del) The ld. D.R taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that the Hon‟ble Courts in the aforementioned cases involving identical facts,…

Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) - 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6469/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Bank Of India Retired Employees Ito(E)-1(1), Mumbai. Medical Assistance Trust, C-5, G बिधम/ Block Star House, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabtb3373J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar, D.R

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 6469/Mum/2016 AY: 2012-13 Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Trust Vs. ITO(E)-1(1). IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Bank of India Retired Employees ITO(E)-1(1), Mumbai. Medical Assistance Trust, C-5, G बिधम/ Block Star House, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABTB3373J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri. Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by : Shri. Suman Kumar, D.R सुनवाई की तायीख / :…

Padamshi Madan Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3999/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Padamshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakps5721L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Padamshi Madan Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Alqps5159R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vishwas V. Mehendale, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

Section 143(3)Section 57

…ted that the interest Vipul Padamshi Shah claim of Rs.8,11,868/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ is not properly disallowed and hence the same may be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC) and CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah (1999) 238 ITR 777 (Bom) and submits that the issue in the present case be decided in favour of the revenue in view of the ratio laid down in the above cases. The Ld. DR thus supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We begin…

Vipul Padamshi Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3998/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vishwas V. Mehendale, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

Section 143(3)Section 57

Ideal Toll & Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 7758/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…:- (a) Swani Spice Mills P Ltd (322 ITR 288)(Bom) (b) Tuticorin Alkali Chemical & Fertilisers (227 ITR 172)(SC) (c) Pandian Chemicals (262 ITR 278)(SC) (d) Liberty India (317 ITR 218)(SC) (e) Totgars Co-operative Sale society (322 ITR 283)(SC) (f) Gopinathan (248 ITR 449)(SC) 27. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the various decisions relied upon by the Ld CIT(A) relate to the interest income earned on investment of “surplus funds”. The decision rendered in the case of Pandian Chemicals (supra) and Liberty India (supra) relate to the issue whether the interest income and o…

Deegee Software P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deegee Software Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 44 Ajaydeep Building, 240 Ward 5(1)(3), Vs. Perin Nariman Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Churchgate Mumbai. Pan No. Aabcd5971F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 24

…s or kept in the form of Short Term Deposit Receipts (STDRs). The AO arrived at a finding that in the present case the interest earned from such FDRs/STDRs have no direct co-relation with the business activity of the assessee. The AO relied on the decision in 248 ITR 449 (SC) wherein it is held that taking FDRs and pledging them as securities for taking loans are two different transactions and the interest in such FDRs is ‘income from other sources’. On the above reasons, the AO treated the interest of Rs.1,02,23,721/- on FDs as ‘Income from Other Sources’ and brought the same to tax. 9. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)…

Harman Harjaspal Singh Baweja, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee appeal by the assessee stands

ITA 5641/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R C JainFor Respondent: Ms N Hemalatha

Section 57Section 57(1)

…lent to related concern on interest @6.53% hence, corresponding interest expenditure is to be allowed. In support of this contention, Assessing Officer has placed his reliance in cases of : • Seth R Dalmia vs. CIT 110 ITR 644 (SC) • CIT vs. Dr V P Gopinathan 248 ITR 449 (SC) • Omerods (India) Pvt Ltd. vs. CIT 36 ITR 329 (Bom) Thus, according to Assessing Officer, assessee has obtained loan at higher rate of interest but has diverted it to related concern at lower rate of interest which is against principle enunciated by Supreme Court for allowability of expenditure u/s. 57(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Upon a…

Shilpa Memani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5244/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms Charu Goyal, CA

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ed order. The assessee is aggrieved against the impugned order. 16. In my considered opinion, the issue raised through this ground is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 11 (SC) in which it has been held that interest on loan taken by the assessee from bank on the security of fixed deposits cannot be reduced from his income by way of interest on the fixed deposits placed by him in the bank. Reliance of the ld. AR on certain decisions contrary to that of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. V.P. Gopinathan…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Diamond 'R'Us, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed while both the appeals filed by the assessee are statistically allowed

ITA 3490/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja

Section 10ASection 250Section 36(1)

…e. Secondly, the AR of the appellant has submitted that no interest has been debited to the P & L A/c. and only net interest of Rs. 13,22,79,483/-was credited. On this issue of netting of interest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. V.P. Gopinathan (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. It could stand diminished only if there was provision in law which permits such diminution. There is none, therefore, the amount paid by the assessee as interest on loan that he too…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed while both the appeals filed by the assessee are statistically allowed

ITA 2365/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja

Section 10ASection 250Section 36(1)

JCIT (OSD) CC 39, Mumbai vs. Diamond 'R' Us, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed while both the appeals filed by the assessee are statistically allowed

ITA 4935/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja

Section 10ASection 250Section 36(1)

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Jt.C.I.T. (OSD) Central Circle 39, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed while both the appeals filed by the assessee are statistically allowed

ITA 4583/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja

Section 10ASection 250Section 36(1)

DCIT Cir 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Energy P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross–objection of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 983/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Bajaj Energy Ltd Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai (Formerly Known As Bajaj Energy Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 021 Pan Aadcb4998C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Kirit Kamdar, Parth Achwal &For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 57

…t expenditure incurred on interest income of Rs.4,24,30,920/- u/s. 57(iii) of the I.T.Act without appreciating the fact that the borrowed funds are not meant for earning interest from such lending as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.V.P.Gopinathan 248 ITR 449 (SC).” The ground raised by the assessee in this regard is as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of taxing the interest income amounting to ` 4,24,30,920/- as “Income from Other Sources” instead of treating the same as…

Shree Mangal Associaties, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 17(3)

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2341/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

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

…enditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V.P. Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC) and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that during the year under consideration the assessee had earned interest income of Rs.47,04,842/-. In the Return of Income, the said income was not treated as ‘Business Income’ and was offered to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Source…

Rewas Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 758/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr.P.Danial

Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 57

…) 198 ITR 388 and CIT versus Hindustan Electro graphite's Ltd (MP) 177 ITR 465, CIT versus Tamil Nadu industrial development Corporation Ltd (Mad) 189 ITR 670, CIT versus newscentre jute mills co-operative Ltd (Cal) 118 ITR 1005, CIT versus VP Gopinathan (SC) 248 ITR 449 and CIT versus Manipur Shipping bills Corporation Ltd (Gau) 26 ITR 551. I have gone through these decisions and I am fully in agreement with the assessing officer that income so earned before commencement of the business though out of business 10 I.T.A. No.758/Mum/2012 funds has to be assessed as income from other sources. To this extent A.O act…

Rishi Suresh Bhasin, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5514/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5514/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mr. Rishi Suresh Bhasin, Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 301, Green Acres, Income Tax- 20(2), V. Lokhandwala Complex, Piramal Chambers, Andheri (W), Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 053. Mumbai – 400 034. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aekpb1001N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh B. AdvaniFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 57

…(3) of 1961 Act, the assessee carried matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by filing first appeal. The ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the claim of the assessee relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan reported in 248 ITR 449(SC) and observed that the assessee had stated that the OD from Dena Bank was taken to meet urgent need of funds from Dena Bank and the assessee derives income only from other sources and has no business. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the interest paid on loan taken against the FD could not be said to have been incurred wholly a…

ITO 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airmid Developer Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5662/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ Income Tax Officer-3(1)(1), M/S. Airmid Developers Ltd., Mumbai. M-62 & 63, First Floor, Vs. Cannaut Place, New Delhi-110001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aagca5601G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms. Beena Santosh, DRFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Singhvi & Amit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…roject in hand instead of allowing the same as Revenue in nature. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the ruling of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan, 248 ITR 449 (SC) which is squarely applicable to facs of the instant case. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act has to be computed as per Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962 when the computation of the assessee was not found to be corre…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. I M C Ltd, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 371/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…guarantee to show that those were taken for the purpose of assessee’s business. It is also not clear at what time the FDR were made whether those were made at the time of bank guarantee or some other time. Ld. DR relied in the case of CIT Vs. V.P. Gopinathan 248 ITR 479 and CIT Vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip & Ors 289 ITR 475 and he supported the assessment order. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has to participate in various tenders for which bank guarantee is very much required. Therefore, FDR was made so that assessee could obtain the bank guarantee. He in support of assessee…