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.

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 896/AHD/2013[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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad Circle, Valsad vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, Valsad

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 699/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69A

…ated 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 ITA.699/SRT/2018 & CO.11/SRT/2021 AYs.2015-16 M/s Mangaldeep 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…

ITO, Corporate Ward -1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Assr Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 3325/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3325/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, M/S. Assr Infrastructure Pvt Corporate Ward -1(1), V. Ltd., Chennai – 600 034. No. 6, Padmanabha Nagar, 2Nd Street, Adayar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aajca 5333J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. V R Vasanthanarayanan, Fca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. V R Vasanthanarayanan, FCA
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…tiny and the appellant's claim of interest of Rs. 1,73,10,808/-was allowed u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Act. In order to galvanise its stand, the company referred to various judicial decisions regarding interest on borrowed capital. In the case of Core Health (Pare 298 ITR 194 (SC) it was held that it was immaterial whether the asset which was borrowed for business purpose. The ratio of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Torrent Pharmaceutical Ltd. 393ITR 625 was cited to underscore that interest is deductible even if capitalized. It was also submitted that there was no deferred revenue concept in th…

M/S Sterling Urban Development Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the grounds of appeal are decided as follows: Ground

ITA 3282/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sterling Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.8, Level-5, Prestige Nebula, Circle -6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp. To Income Tax Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 12.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed U/S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 On 12Th June 2002 Under The Name & Style “Foundation Habitats (India) Private Limited”. The Company Has Been Converted As A Spv In The Year 2006. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Activities Relating To Real Estate

For Appellant: Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144C

…ld absolve future payment of such liability. In what manner the taxpayer raises its required funds was essentially a case of business decision and the Revenue could not certainly question the priority of the taxpayer in DCIT v. Core Health Care Limited [2008] 298 ITR 194 (SC) this respect. The taxpayer’s decision of early redemption and the terms on which such early redemption would be resorted to, was within the public domain. The decisions were already taken and made public. Merely because certain tax treatment on the respective expenditures and gains had been claimed, it would not be a determinative factor ins…

M/S. Shubh Enterprise, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.317/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Shubh Enterprise Principal Commissioner Of Income V Tp Scheme No.14, Plot No.42, Opp. Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Recent Residency, Pal Village, Surat Gate, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 6271 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133Section 143Section 143(3)Section 184Section 263Section 40

…of CIT v. Khedut Sahakari 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) 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 undisclosed income justified. ITA No.317/SRT/2018 A.Y. 13-14 M/s Shubh Enterprise In the case of Deputy CIT v. Radhe Dev…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Apollo Tyres Ltd

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

…tantial questions deal with the amount expended by the assessee towards preoperative expenses for establishing a plant, whether would constitute capital 3 (2009) 311 ITR 405 (Delhi) 4 (2013) 352 ITR 376 (Delhi) 5 (2007) 293 ITR 231 (Delhi) 6 (2008) 298 ITR 194 SC ITA No.44/2017 -11- expenditure or revenue expenditure in the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 37 of the Act enables deduction of any expenditure which is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession, as the case may be, and which is not in the nature of cap…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ubmitted that this issue is covered under Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of Income Tax Act and the entire interest of Rs.1,94,52069/- is allowable as revenue expenditure. We draw your kind attention to the following case laws: 1. DCIT V s Core Health Care Ltd 298 ITR 194 (SC) Paper Book pages 63 to 71 2. CIT Vs Rajaram Bandekar 202 ITR 514 (Born HC) Paper Book pages 59 to 62.” 10.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. She submitted that the CIT(A)’s order should be restored on this issue. 10.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as we…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 880/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ubmitted that this issue is covered under Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of Income Tax Act and the entire interest of Rs.1,94,52069/- is allowable as revenue expenditure. We draw your kind attention to the following case laws: 1. DCIT V s Core Health Care Ltd 298 ITR 194 (SC) Paper Book pages 63 to 71 2. CIT Vs Rajaram Bandekar 202 ITR 514 (Born HC) Paper Book pages 59 to 62.” 10.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. She submitted that the CIT(A)’s order should be restored on this issue. 10.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as we…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 879/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ubmitted that this issue is covered under Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of Income Tax Act and the entire interest of Rs.1,94,52069/- is allowable as revenue expenditure. We draw your kind attention to the following case laws: 1. DCIT V s Core Health Care Ltd 298 ITR 194 (SC) Paper Book pages 63 to 71 2. CIT Vs Rajaram Bandekar 202 ITR 514 (Born HC) Paper Book pages 59 to 62.” 10.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. She submitted that the CIT(A)’s order should be restored on this issue. 10.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as we…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 803/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ubmitted that this issue is covered under Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of Income Tax Act and the entire interest of Rs.1,94,52069/- is allowable as revenue expenditure. We draw your kind attention to the following case laws: 1. DCIT V s Core Health Care Ltd 298 ITR 194 (SC) Paper Book pages 63 to 71 2. CIT Vs Rajaram Bandekar 202 ITR 514 (Born HC) Paper Book pages 59 to 62.” 10.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. She submitted that the CIT(A)’s order should be restored on this issue. 10.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as we…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 802/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ubmitted that this issue is covered under Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of Income Tax Act and the entire interest of Rs.1,94,52069/- is allowable as revenue expenditure. We draw your kind attention to the following case laws: 1. DCIT V s Core Health Care Ltd 298 ITR 194 (SC) Paper Book pages 63 to 71 2. CIT Vs Rajaram Bandekar 202 ITR 514 (Born HC) Paper Book pages 59 to 62.” 10.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. She submitted that the CIT(A)’s order should be restored on this issue. 10.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as we…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 801/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ubmitted that this issue is covered under Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of Income Tax Act and the entire interest of Rs.1,94,52069/- is allowable as revenue expenditure. We draw your kind attention to the following case laws: 1. DCIT V s Core Health Care Ltd 298 ITR 194 (SC) Paper Book pages 63 to 71 2. CIT Vs Rajaram Bandekar 202 ITR 514 (Born HC) Paper Book pages 59 to 62.” 10.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. She submitted that the CIT(A)’s order should be restored on this issue. 10.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as we…

The Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Kothjagudem, Hyderabad vs. Addl.Citt, Khammam Range, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 561/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ubmitted that this issue is covered under Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of Income Tax Act and the entire interest of Rs.1,94,52069/- is allowable as revenue expenditure. We draw your kind attention to the following case laws: 1. DCIT V s Core Health Care Ltd 298 ITR 194 (SC) Paper Book pages 63 to 71 2. CIT Vs Rajaram Bandekar 202 ITR 514 (Born HC) Paper Book pages 59 to 62.” 10.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. She submitted that the CIT(A)’s order should be restored on this issue. 10.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as we…

DCIT, Circle-1, Khammam vs. The Singareni Colleries Company Lt.D, Kothagudem

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ubmitted that this issue is covered under Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of Income Tax Act and the entire interest of Rs.1,94,52069/- is allowable as revenue expenditure. We draw your kind attention to the following case laws: 1. DCIT V s Core Health Care Ltd 298 ITR 194 (SC) Paper Book pages 63 to 71 2. CIT Vs Rajaram Bandekar 202 ITR 514 (Born HC) Paper Book pages 59 to 62.” 10.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. She submitted that the CIT(A)’s order should be restored on this issue. 10.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as we…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ubmitted that this issue is covered under Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of Income Tax Act and the entire interest of Rs.1,94,52069/- is allowable as revenue expenditure. We draw your kind attention to the following case laws: 1. DCIT V s Core Health Care Ltd 298 ITR 194 (SC) Paper Book pages 63 to 71 2. CIT Vs Rajaram Bandekar 202 ITR 514 (Born HC) Paper Book pages 59 to 62.” 10.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. She submitted that the CIT(A)’s order should be restored on this issue. 10.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as we…

Control Plus Oil & Gas Solutions Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 428/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Convened through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 428/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Control Plus Oil & Gas The Income Tax बनाम/ Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Officer Vs. 22, Dhara Centre, Near Ward -1(1)(3), Vijay Char Rasta, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Behind Panjarapole, - 380009 Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCC7127K .. (अपीलाथ"…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffee Day Global Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 816/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shree C. Ramesh, C. AFor Respondent: Shree T Roumuan Paite, CIT DR
Section 36

…nd therefore, it cannot be considered as having created a new asset. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of M/s Vardhman Polytex Ltd. Vs. CIT, 349 ITR 690 and also in the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Limited, 298 ITR 194. He also submitted that this tribunal order in A. Y. 2010 – 11 has been followed by the tribunal in A. Y. 2013 – 14 and 2014 – 15 also in ITA Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 dated 24.02.2020. He submitted a copy of this tribunal order and drawn our attention to para no. 8.9.1. 5. Thereafter, he submitted that as per Para 10.8 of this tribunal order, t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffee Day Global Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 815/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shree C. Ramesh, C. AFor Respondent: Shree T Roumuan Paite, CIT DR
Section 36

…nd therefore, it cannot be considered as having created a new asset. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of M/s Vardhman Polytex Ltd. Vs. CIT, 349 ITR 690 and also in the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Limited, 298 ITR 194. He also submitted that this tribunal order in A. Y. 2010 – 11 has been followed by the tribunal in A. Y. 2013 – 14 and 2014 – 15 also in ITA Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 dated 24.02.2020. He submitted a copy of this tribunal order and drawn our attention to para no. 8.9.1. 5. Thereafter, he submitted that as per Para 10.8 of this tribunal order, t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4793/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 80I

…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 assessee 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 p…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4187/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 80I

…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 assessee 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 p…

DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. (298 ITR 194) — Cited in 165 Judgments | BharatTax