Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Doctor and Co.

180 ITR 627High Court1989#23342 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2017.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Doctor and Co.

HORIZON INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 356/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 14. Before parting, we may refer to the judgments relied upon by the CIT(A). Firstly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Doctor and Co., 180 ITR 627 (Bom.). In this case, assessee had diverted borrowed funds to its sister concerns without any business reason and, therefore, the corresponding interest expenditure was disallowed. The aforesaid decision is not applicable in the present case inasmuch as in the instant case, we have observed that the expenditure of interest has a nexus with the pu…

E-CITY INVESTMENTS & HOLDINGS CO. PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

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

…drawn to the effect that had those documents been produced, the same would have gone against the interest of the assessee, the questions of law involved in the instant case should be answered in negative. 2.3.5. In the case of CIT V / s. Doctor & Co. (1989) 180 ITR 627 (Born), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the assessee had borrowed money from different persons in the earlier years on interest and that a part of the money so borrowed was advanced to its sister concerns free of interest. The interest to the extent it was payable on the moneys borrowed and diverted to sister concerns free of interest…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2863/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri MP Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Chandra Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…t the assessee was having sufficient fund available and discussing the same, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the disallowance. He placed reliance on the following decision: i) CIT vs. Tin Box Co. – 260 ITR 637 (Del.); ii) CIT vs. Doctor & Co. – 180 ITR 627 (Bom.); iii) Sanghvi Swiss Refills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO – 85 ITD 59 (Mum); 50. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has deleted the disallowance mainly on the basis that as per balance sheet as on 31.3.2008, the assessee was having huge reserves as detailed hereunder: SCHEDULE ‘B’ RESERVES…

Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Doctor and Co. (180 ITR 627) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax