CIT v. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd.

328 ITR 544High Court2010#20511 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd.

Kiri Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…They cannot be charged to the pre-existing business. It is only for the former case, that relates to expansion of existing business, that can be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii). This was analyzed in the case of CIT Vs. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR 544 by Gujarat High Court. It is further submitted that the interest on borrowings in connection with the expansion of the existing business of the company can be claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. We place our reliance on the following decisions: - CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 - GNFC vs DCIT 73 TTJ 787 -…

M/S Mfar Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 385/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri C.R. Krishna & Sachin Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…ndment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can look fairly at the language used." 1.4. CIT (Appeals) cited the case law of CIT vs. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd (2010) 328 ITR 544 (Guj) in support of his decision. Further, in CIT Vs. Vardhman Polytex Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 152 (P&H), it was held, "Interest paid on capital borrowed for setting up of a new unit in the same line of business — capital expenditure — Interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of acquisition of the assets of the new unit is to be allowed as a reve…

Synergy Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Mumbai

ITA 4841/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4841/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…y cannot be charged to the pre- existing business. It is only for the former case, that relates to expansion of existing business, that can be allowed under Section 36(l)(iii). This was analyzed in the case of CIT Vrss. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR 544 by Gujarat High Court. Punjab Stainless Steel Lid. 324 ITR 396 /Delhi High Court), in this the Imn'ble High Court has given a finding which is in favour of revenue and has clearly distinguished Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT, 298 ITR 298. In this judgment the Hon'ble ITAT has squarely followed Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision Punjab Stainless…

M/S. Mavoor Trade Links, Calicut vs. The ACIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 575/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

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

…rest write off. 6) That interest on borrowings used for capital expenditure relating to a totally new business apart from existing business is to be capitalized as pre- commencement expenditure was held in the case of CIT vs. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. 328 ITR 544 (Guj.) 7) In Core Health Care Ltd. vs. DCIT (SC) 298 ITR 194 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly remarked "The provisions under Section 36(1) (iii) make no distinction between money borrowed to acquire a capital asset and a revenue asset. 8) Therefore, it is incorrect to stipulate that the interest paid has to be capitalized. The interest pai…