CIT vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd (2009)(317 ITR 236)(Bom) (b) Multican Builders Ltd. v. CIT

278 ITR 142High Court2005#20365 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32 Section 54 Section 92B Section 92C(1)

Issues it is cited on

put to use company section 143(3)business interest

Judgments citing CIT vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd (2009)(317 ITR 236)(Bom) (b) Multican Builders Ltd. v. CIT

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

…ation against the judicial precedents cited. In support of his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the following decisions : 1. M/s. Liquidators of Pursa Limited vs. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 265 (SC) 2. Multican Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 142 (Calcutta) (HC) 3. Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 404 (Del.) (HC) 4. Estate of Late Dr. S. Zakaulla Masood v. ITO [2020] 186 ITD 326 ((ITAT-Bangalore). 5. CIT v. Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd [2013] 358 ITR 314 (Mad.) (HC) 6. CIT v. Girish L. Ragha [2016] 289 CTR 213 (Bombay) (HC). 8. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee with…

ACIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T LTD ( DATAR SWITCH GEAR LTD MERGED ), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3806/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Section 143(3)

…. Hence, the assessee should be allowed depreciation thereon. In support of these contentions, the ld A.R placed his reliance on the following case laws:- (a) CIT vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd (2009)(317 ITR 236)(Bom) (b) Multican Builders Ltd vs. CIT (2005)(278 ITR 142)(Cal) (c) Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd vs. CIT (123 ITR 404)(Delhi) (d) PCIT vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd (2018)(403 ITR 248)(Bom) Referring to the Cross objection, the Ld A.R submitted that the above said amount of Rs.43.42 crores should be allowed as “business loss”. 9 M/s. L&T Ltd. (Datar Switch Gear Ltd. merged) 18. We have heard rival content…

THE JT. COMM OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENT .CIR-6(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S D''DECOR PROPERTIES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1743/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: This Extended Date, Accordingly, We Hold That There Is No Delay In Filing Of Appeal By The Revenue.

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…see and consequently the assessee would be eligible for investment allowance u/s 32A of the Act. 3.8. We further find that the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court had addressed the issue in dispute before us in the case of Multican Builders Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 278 ITR 142 especially on the allowability of depreciation and the relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- “9. The leasing of the article or thing would amount to employment of the article or thing for profitable use, since the advantage of the possession or acquisition of the article or thing is being obtained by reason o…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA/571/2007HC Delhi11 Jan 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)

…was held that there was a consensus of judicial opinion in favour of adopting a liberal interpretation or a wider interpretation to the expression “used for the purposes of the business”. 14. In Multican Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax [2005] 278 ITR 142, the Calcutta High Court considered the expression “used for the purpose of business or profession” as appearing in Section 32 of the Act and concluded that the claim of depreciation is not dependent on the “actual” use or the asset being “put to” use. The expression has to be interpreted in the ordinary grammatical sense, as in common parl…