DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.

298 ITR 194Supreme Court of India2008#592 most cited

What is DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. authority for?

Interest expenditure incurred for acquiring capital assets, even if capitalized in the books, is deductible if for the purpose of business. Section 36(1)(iii) is a self-contained code regarding such deductions.

165

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,842 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. · section 36(1)(iii) · interest expenditure · capital asset · business purpose · capitalized interest · revenue expenditure · deduction · tax law

Also reported as

167 Taxmann 206

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 142(2A)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(2)(b)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 40(3)short deduction of tdsinterest on interestclosely held companyshort deduction of taxaccumulated profitsrelated party transactiondisallowance of interest expendituresection 142(2a)section 194jsection 40a(2)(b)section 14a(2)

Judgments citing DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.

Add. CIT Spl Range--3, New Delhi vs. Dlf Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2238/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5978/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.2238/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No.5919/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801A

…ition of the asset till the date on which such asset was put to use shall not be allowed as deduction. The deduction is to be disallowed even if the interest is capitalized in the books of accounts or not. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Core Healthcare [298 ITR 194] has held that provisions of section 36(1 )(iii) is a code in itself. In the present case, the interest paid by the assesse is not for the purpose of acquisition of any capital asset but for its inventory. We do not find any restriction in provisions contained u/s 36(1 )(iii) which provides that the interest can be disallowed if incurred for the…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 03, New Delhi vs. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5978/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5978/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.2238/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No.5919/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801A

…ition of the asset till the date on which such asset was put to use shall not be allowed as deduction. The deduction is to be disallowed even if the interest is capitalized in the books of accounts or not. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Core Healthcare [298 ITR 194] has held that provisions of section 36(1 )(iii) is a code in itself. In the present case, the interest paid by the assesse is not for the purpose of acquisition of any capital asset but for its inventory. We do not find any restriction in provisions contained u/s 36(1 )(iii) which provides that the interest can be disallowed if incurred for the…

Rain Cements Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Advocate Prathishta Singh &For Respondent: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

…7(1) of the Act, 1961 to the extent interest is attributable to the amount borrowed and utilized for acquisition of shares of “Trauma”. Page 32 of 35 ITA No 864 of 2017 Rain Cements Ltd Hyderabad The Apex Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd (298 ITR 194) held that: “interest on moneys borrowed for the purposes of business is a necessary item of expenditure in a business. For allowance of a claim for deduction of interest under the said section, all that is necessary is that – firstly, the money, ie capital. must have been borrowed by the assessee; secondly, it must have been borrowed for the pur…

M/S. Icici Bank Ltd ( Erstwhile Icici Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 7589/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 88

…the purpose of business. She also relied upon the order, dated 31/01/2017, passed by the Tribunal in appeal for the Assessment Year 2000-01 (ITA No. 4657 & 4826/Mum/2004) and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. : 298 ITR 194 (SC). 29. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and submitted that the interest were capitalized in the books of accounts by the Assessee and therefore, the same could not be treated as revenue expenditure. 30. We note that the Tribunal has, in the case of the Assessee i…

Shivam Developers, Godadra vs. ITO, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.76/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Shivam Developers, Vs. The Pr. Cit-2, 141, Khodiyar Residency, Surat. Godadra, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acffs4002D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2022

Section 115Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40Section 69A

…ahakari Khand Udyog Mandli, 104 ITR 206. This view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd v. Asst. CIT, (2009) 313 ITR 244 (Guj) as also by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd., (2008) 298 ITR 194(SC). Therefore, the said ground does not hold valid. With respect to second question, we may notice that the assessee's stand is that its sole business was that of running a hospital. It had no other source of income and that therefore, treating such undisclosed income from other source was not justified. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Radhe Develo…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Jath Wind Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1321/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit,Circle-2(1) Vs. Jath Wind Energy Private Room No.514 Limited 5Th Floor 8-2-684/A, Nsl Icon, Signature Towers 4Th Floor, Road No.12, Kondapur-500 084 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri Aliasager RampurawalaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(2)

…ng the disallowance made by the AO. The ld. DR referring to the order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that ld.CIT(A) while allowing the claim of the assessee has followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core HealthCare Ltd reported in 298 ITR 194. However, the facts of that case are different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is not correct. He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) be reversed and that of the order of the AO be restored. He also relied on the following decisions :- i.Vardhaman Polytex Ltd. reported in[2008] 167 taxm…

Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, this ground is allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.B Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 194HSection 40

…rchase of machinery is revenue expenditure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Akkamba Textiles, 227 ITR 464, similarly held that processing charges are revenue in nature. The on Hon'ble Supreme Court in DCII Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. reported in 298 ITR 194 overlooked the decision on the Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Vard man Polytec Ltd. wherein it was held that if capital was borrowed for establishment of a new unit then interest expenses would not be an allowable deduction. As the Supreme Court judgement is latest and supersedes the Punjab & Haryana High Court, such…

Apl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2917/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To suppor…

Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6482/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To suppor…

Apl Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6480/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To suppor…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6473/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To suppor…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Apl Logistics (India ) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6471/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To suppor…

Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4150/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence, no disallowance is required to be made. To suppor…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Shri Arun Singhania, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue being bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 313/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 313/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Arun Singhania Gokul, Geeta Nagar, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Akhps6503R

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 313/RPR/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shri Arun Singhania Gokul, Geeta Nagar, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AKHPS6503R ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by :Shri Amit M Jain, CA Revenue by :Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR 2 DCIT Vs. Arun Singhania सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 25.07.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Dat…

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indianoil Skytanking Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Fuel Farm Facility, of Income Tax, Bangalore International Airport, Circle 3(1)(1), Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 300. PAN: AABCI 5709C ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.05.2022 Date of Pronounc…

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indianoil Skytanking Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Fuel Farm Facility, of Income Tax, Bangalore International Airport, Circle 3(1)(1), Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 300. PAN: AABCI 5709C ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.05.2022 Date of Pronounc…

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indianoil Skytanking Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Fuel Farm Facility, of Income Tax, Bangalore International Airport, Circle 3(1)(1), Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 300. PAN: AABCI 5709C ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.05.2022 Date of Pronounc…

M/S. Havmor Ice Cream Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2866/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Havmor Ice Cream Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Commerce House Iv Vs Income-Tax, Besides Shell Petrol Pump Circle-2(1)(1), Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aabch 6766 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pramod M. Jagtap, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Dated 12.10.2017 & The Solitary Issue Relating To Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- On Account Of Interest As Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Raised Therein By Way Of The Following Original Grounds:- “Ground No.1 – Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Towards Capital Work In Progress (“Cwip”) 1. Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act On Account Of Expenditure Incurred By The Appellant On Cwip. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Considering The Facts That Expenditure Incurred On Cwip Ay 2013-14 Havmor Ice Cream Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…avmor Ice Cream Ltd. vs. DCIT 12 since it was an extension of existing business, the disallowance of interest was rightly deleted by the Tribunal by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dy.CIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. reported in 298 ITR 194 (2008)[SC]. It is thus clear that the context in which the issue relating to disallowance of interest expenditure came to be decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nirma Limited (supra) was entirely different and eventhough it was found as a fact in that case that it was a case of extension of existing business, the inter…

Sh. Chander Mohan Mehra, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Amritsar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 237/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. A. R. Dogra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 237/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Chander Mohan Mehra Vs. Smt. Shashi Handa 211, Lawrence Road, Income Tax Officer, Shastri Nagar, Amritsar Ward-4(1), Amritsar [PAN: AHMPM 0561B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. A. R. Dogra, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 02.03.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned or…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1798/AHD/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1187 & 896/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2000-2001 & 2004-2005 Nirma Limited, A.C.I.T., Nirma House, Vs. Circle-5, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate with Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 234Section 234CSection 271Section 801ASection 80HSection 80ISection 80l

…below found that it was an expansion of the existing business, applying the tests laid down by this court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (supra), in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 194/167 Taxman 206 (SC), the fact whether the borrowing is capital or revenue expenditure would be of no consequence. ITA nos.896,1187 & 1798/AHD/2013 & 15 Asstt. Years 200-2001 & 2004-05 32 In view of the above judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the own case of the assessee, which was rendered subsequent to the date of ITAT order as discuss…