DCIT v. B.Kumara Gowda

396 ITR 386High Court2017#12735 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing DCIT v. B.Kumara Gowda

ACIT 1 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is allowed, revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 111/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

…Aunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620(Mad) 4. CIT vs Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd (2012) 346 ITR 33(Bom) 5 ITA 7853/Mum/2019 111/Mum/2020 CO 80/Mum/2021 5. Hiranandani Akruti JV vs DCIT ITA No.5678/Mum/2015 order dated 3 October, 2017 6. DCIT vs B Kumar Gowda (2017) 396 ITR 386 (Kar) 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of the assessing officer, learned departmental representative submitted, the subject properties were never in the possession of the assessee. He submitted, when the assessee is neither the owner of the properties nor was in possession, the properties cannot be treated as stock-in-trade of the asses…

Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT RG. 1 (1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed, revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 7853/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

…Aunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620(Mad) 4. CIT vs Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd (2012) 346 ITR 33(Bom) 5 ITA 7853/Mum/2019 111/Mum/2020 CO 80/Mum/2021 5. Hiranandani Akruti JV vs DCIT ITA No.5678/Mum/2015 order dated 3 October, 2017 6. DCIT vs B Kumar Gowda (2017) 396 ITR 386 (Kar) 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of the assessing officer, learned departmental representative submitted, the subject properties were never in the possession of the assessee. He submitted, when the assessee is neither the owner of the properties nor was in possession, the properties cannot be treated as stock-in-trade of the asses…

M/S Maya Ventures Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(2)

The appeal is allowed

ITA/136/2018HC Karnataka18 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260

…en incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency.” 11. In the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income –Tax Vs. B. Kumara Gowda, reported in (2017) 396 ITR 386 (KAR), the Karnataka High Court has held that, the legal expenditure to protect lease is certainly a ‘business expenditure’. 12. Lastly, in the case of Karnataka Trade Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 239 (Karnataka), again on the issue of ‘bus…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmial Jain and Co Ltd vs CIT, 81 ITR 754 (SC) and Sree Meenkshi ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 72 -: Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 63 ITR 207 (SC). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. B.Kumara Gowda, 396 ITR 386 after referring to the above decisions of SC had held as follows:- 13. Before we proceed further, we shall refer to the following judgments cited at the Bar:— (a) In Dalmia Jain & Co., Ltd., it has been observed thus:— "The question for decision is whether the litigation expenses incurred by the assessee were for the purpose of creating, curin…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmial Jain and Co Ltd vs CIT, 81 ITR 754 (SC) and Sree Meenkshi ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 72 -: Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 63 ITR 207 (SC). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. B.Kumara Gowda, 396 ITR 386 after referring to the above decisions of SC had held as follows:- 13. Before we proceed further, we shall refer to the following judgments cited at the Bar:— (a) In Dalmia Jain & Co., Ltd., it has been observed thus:— "The question for decision is whether the litigation expenses incurred by the assessee were for the purpose of creating, curin…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmial Jain and Co Ltd vs CIT, 81 ITR 754 (SC) and Sree Meenkshi ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 72 -: Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 63 ITR 207 (SC). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. B.Kumara Gowda, 396 ITR 386 after referring to the above decisions of SC had held as follows:- 13. Before we proceed further, we shall refer to the following judgments cited at the Bar:— (a) In Dalmia Jain & Co., Ltd., it has been observed thus:— "The question for decision is whether the litigation expenses incurred by the assessee were for the purpose of creating, curin…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmial Jain and Co Ltd vs CIT, 81 ITR 754 (SC) and Sree Meenkshi ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 72 -: Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 63 ITR 207 (SC). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. B.Kumara Gowda, 396 ITR 386 after referring to the above decisions of SC had held as follows:- 13. Before we proceed further, we shall refer to the following judgments cited at the Bar:— (a) In Dalmia Jain & Co., Ltd., it has been observed thus:— "The question for decision is whether the litigation expenses incurred by the assessee were for the purpose of creating, curin…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Maya Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 840/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 37

…to decide this issue. The judgments cited are as under. 1. CIT Vs. Deluxe Film Distributors Ltd. (114 ITR 434) (Cal) 2. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (81 ITR 754) (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Bhowrisankara Steam Ferry Co. (87 ITR 650)(AP) 4. DCIT Vs. B. Kumara Gowda (396 ITR 386) (Kar) He also submitted that the amount in question was paid to Shri Ramesh for settling dispute with his sister so the development work of the property can be Page 3 of 4 carried out smoothly and therefore, it should be accepted that this payment was for business exigency. 5. We have considered the rival submissions.There is no dispute that a…