CIT Vs. Phil Creations Ltd. &Anr. 244 CTR (Bom.) 226; (iii) CIT v. Tulip Star Hotel Ltd.

260 ITR 341High Court2003#20276 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Phil Creations Ltd. &Anr. 244 CTR (Bom.) 226; (iii) CIT v. Tulip Star Hotel Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI vs. PCI LTD., NEW DELHI

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 7959/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri SatishAggarwal, C. AFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. D. R
Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…CIT 288 ITR 01 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Spencers& Co. Ltd. & Co. Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 644 (Mad.); (ii) CIT Vs. Phil Creations Ltd. &Anr. 244 CTR (Bom.) 226; (iii) CIT Vs. Tulip Star Hotel Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 482 (Del.); (iv) Kejriwal Enterprises &Anr. Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 341 (Cal) 6. Having heard the parties and perusing the material available on record, the Ld. Commissioner deleted the addition of Rs.2,18,26,743/- made by AO under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on account of disallowance of interest expenses by holding as under: “6.14 The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that once it is established that there was nexu…

PCI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 7302/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri SatishAggarwal, C. AFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. D. R
Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…CIT 288 ITR 01 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Spencers& Co. Ltd. & Co. Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 644 (Mad.); (ii) CIT Vs. Phil Creations Ltd. &Anr. 244 CTR (Bom.) 226; (iii) CIT Vs. Tulip Star Hotel Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 482 (Del.); (iv) Kejriwal Enterprises &Anr. Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 341 (Cal) 6. Having heard the parties and perusing the material available on record, the Ld. Commissioner deleted the addition of Rs.2,18,26,743/- made by AO under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on account of disallowance of interest expenses by holding as under: “6.14 The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that once it is established that there was nexu…

DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DODSON LINDBLOM HYDRO POWER P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6704/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6704/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit 9(3)(1) M/S. Dodson Lindblom Hydro Power Pvt. 215, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Ltd. Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 6-Shiv Vastu, Tejpal Scheme Road No.5, Vile Parle (E),Mumbai - 400057 Pan:Aaacd7612A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari-Dr Assessee By: Shri Pankaj K. Jain-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2018 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य,राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Cit(A)-16, Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Hydro Electric Power, Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.09.2012, Declaring Total Income At Rs.2.57 Crore, Later On A Revised Return Was Filed On 19.08.2013 Declaring Income At Rs.1.96 Crores.On 25.09. 2013,The Assessee Revised The Return For The Second Time Disclosing Income Of Rs.3.57 Cores. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 28.02.2015,U/S.143(3) Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs. 5.53 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj K. Jain-ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…to AHPL is for the purpose of business, that the provisions of section 36(1) were not applicable,that interest on amounts borrowed qualified for reduction. He relied upon the cases of Reliance Utilities supra, SA Builders (158 taxman 74),Kejriwal Enterprises (260 ITR 341) and Modi Private Ltd.(208 ITR 31). M/s. Dodson Lindblom Hydro Power Pvt.Ltd. 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the assessee had advanced loan to AHPL for its business, that the financial institutions had advanced loans for a specific purpose, that the borrowed funds were utilised for those pur…

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMUK SCAN INVESTMENT PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2763/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 143(3)

…stries Pvt. Limited and advanced the funds to its subsidiary, M/s. Carolina Food & Industries Limited for business purpose. The former is engaged in hospital business whereas the latter is involved in restaurant business. In Kejriwal Enterprises v. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 341, 345,346(Cal), the Hon'ble High Court held that "under section 36(1) (iii), interest on borrowed capital can be allowed as a deduction if the borrowed capital is used for the purposes of business of the assessee. A business purpose is for the carrying on of the business and such purpose in capacity as a businessman; the expenses must not be of a…

CIT Vs. Phil Creations Ltd. &Anr. 244 CTR (Bom.) 226; (iii) CIT v. Tulip Star Hotel Ltd. (260 ITR 341) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax