Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (195 ITR 81)(SC) 2. DCIT v. Prestige Garden Construction P.Ltd.(

211 ITR 511High Court1995#11310 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Judgments citing Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (195 ITR 81)(SC) 2. DCIT v. Prestige Garden Construction P.Ltd.(

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.(NOW GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.)

Appeal stands disposed of

ITA/269/2009HC Punjab & Haryana19 Jan 2026

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 260ASection 80

…fresh, and apportionate the suitable management expenditure towards earning of the dividend income. To this limited extent the matter is restored to his file. In view of the decision of the Apex court in the case of H.K. Investment Co. Vs. CIT-Reported in 211 ITR 511, the apportioned bifurcation DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.01.20 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-269-2009 -5- of the interest paid by the assessee is to be allowed proportionately from income from business and dividend income u/s 36(i)(iii) and 57(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the Ass…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAKINADA SEZ PRIVATE LIMITED,, R.R.DIST

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1012/HYD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Kakinada Sez Pvt. Ward-2(1), Ltd., Hyderabad. Shamshabad. Pan: Aacck 5670 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue By: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

…rtium Limited vs. ITO reported in 315 ITR 255 (Delhi), ITAT decision in the case of M/s. Tirumala Hydel Power Projects Ltd in ITA No.640V/2004, Continental Construction Ltd vs. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 81/60 Taxman (SC), H.K. (Investment) Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 511 (Guj.), India Cement Ltd vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC), CIT vs. Sri Ram Honda Power Equipment reported in 289 ITR 501 (Delhi), J.F. Laboratories Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 96 ITD 448 (Mumbai). However, the Ld. AO was of the view that since the assessee had taken loan from the bank for acquisition of land and development of the projec…

IMPERIAL CONSULTANTS & SECURITIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS OMPERIAL CONSULTANTS & SECURITIES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT -6 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3529/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Imperial Consultants & Dcit, Circle - 6(3)(1) Securities Ltd. Room No. 506, 5Th Floor (Formerly Imperial Consultants & Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Securities P. Ltd) Vs. Mumbai 400020 Manickam Complex, Gr. Floor 1/3, General Paters Roadchennai 600002 Pan – Aaacg4413G Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle - 6(3)(1) M/S. Imperial Consultants & Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Securities Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Essar House, 11, Kk Marg Mumbai 400020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034 Pan – Aaacg4413G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56Section 57

…eferable to the loan on which interest income is earned, which is chargeable to tax under s. 56.— Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 101 CTR'-(SC) 386 : (1992) 195 ITR 81 (SC), U.K. (Investment) Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 121 CTR (Guj) 470 : (1995) 211 ITR 511 (Guj) and India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) relied on; Ms. Ila R. Ambani (ITA Nos. 4340 & 9341/Bom/90, dt. 30th Sept., 2004) and Srnt. Padmavati Jaiknshna vs. Addl CIT (1987) 62 CTR (SC) 14 : (1987) 166 ITR 176 (SC) distinguished; Mandideep Engineering & Packaging Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 71 TTJ (Ind) 954 : (2001)77 I…

E-CITY INVESTMENTS & HOLDINGS COMAPNY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

ITA 1153/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings The Dy.CIT, Circle – 8(1), Company Private Limited. Room No. 210, 2nd Floor, 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Off. New Link Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Opp. Laxmi Industrial Estate, Andheri (West), Mumbai- 400053. PAN:- AAACE8030F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Jay Bhansali. Respondent by : Shri. Suman Kumar Date of Hearing: 10/02/2017 Date of Pronouncement: 15/02/2017 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This…

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)

…purposes” and also earning income under the residuary head “income from other sources” the interest paid on money so borrowed should be bifurcated proportionately between the “business income” and “income from other sources” (H.K. Investment Pvt. ltd. vs CIT 211 ITR 511, 514 (Guj.). However, in the present case, the facts are entirely different as the assessee advanced the funds 35 E-City Investment & Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.8382/Mum/11 to its subsidiaries for “business exigencies”, wherein, the assessee is a holding company, thus, it is not a colorable device. 2.11 In the case of CIT vs Reliance Co…

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1072/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

…year under consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (195 ITR 81)(SC) 2. DCIT vs. Prestige Garden Construction P.Ltd.(67 SOT 139) 3. H.K.Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (211 ITR 511) (Guj.) 4. India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT 60 ITR 52 (SC) 5.3 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the finding of the AO as well as the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee failed to prove that interest claim was wholly and exclusively utilised in respect of ‘income from other sources’ with regard to fixed deposit.…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR POWER CORPORATION LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GMR POWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1629/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

…year under consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (195 ITR 81)(SC) 2. DCIT vs. Prestige Garden Construction P.Ltd.(67 SOT 139) 3. H.K.Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (211 ITR 511) (Guj.) 4. India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT 60 ITR 52 (SC) 5.3 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the finding of the AO as well as the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee failed to prove that interest claim was wholly and exclusively utilised in respect of ‘income from other sources’ with regard to fixed deposit.…

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1556/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

…year under consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (195 ITR 81)(SC) 2. DCIT vs. Prestige Garden Construction P.Ltd.(67 SOT 139) 3. H.K.Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (211 ITR 511) (Guj.) 4. India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT 60 ITR 52 (SC) 5.3 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the finding of the AO as well as the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee failed to prove that interest claim was wholly and exclusively utilised in respect of ‘income from other sources’ with regard to fixed deposit.…

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. M. SURESH COMPANY P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 6708/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S M. Suresh Company Income Tax-5(2), Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.571, 419 Parekh Market, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Opera House, M.K. Road Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaecm0931D

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…es as also earning income under the residuary head “income from other sources” the interest paid on the money so borrowed should be bifurcated proportionately between the “business income” and “other source of income” H.K (Investment) Company pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 211 ITR 511, 514 (Guj). The totality of facts clearly indicates that the assessee did not establish the nexus between the borrowed funds and the investment so made with a clear intention to conceal the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income, therefore, in our view, penalty was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer. The stand of the Rev…

Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (195 ITR 81)(SC) 2. DCIT v. Prestige Garden Construction P.Ltd.( (211 ITR 511) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax