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.

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

ITA 4436/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…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. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 4061/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Global Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3041/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

…be permitted as allowable deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the income tax act 1961.” The question has been answered in favour of the assessee. (5) The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd (2008) 298 ITR 194 wherein it was held as follows: "Section 36(1)(iii) of the income tax act, 1962, has to be read on its own terms; it is a code by itself. It makes no distinction between money borrowed to acquire a capital asset or a revenue asset. All that the section requires is that the assessee must borrow capital and the purpose of the borrowing must be for…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Global Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3040/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

…be permitted as allowable deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the income tax act 1961.” The question has been answered in favour of the assessee. (5) The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd (2008) 298 ITR 194 wherein it was held as follows: "Section 36(1)(iii) of the income tax act, 1962, has to be read on its own terms; it is a code by itself. It makes no distinction between money borrowed to acquire a capital asset or a revenue asset. All that the section requires is that the assessee must borrow capital and the purpose of the borrowing must be for…

M/S. Mavoor Trade Links, Calicut vs. The ACIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 575/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

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

…al expenditure relating to a totally new business apart from existing business is to be capitalized as pre- commencement expenditure was held in the case of CIT vs. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. 328 ITR 544 (Guj.) 7) In Core Health Care Ltd. vs. DCIT (SC) 298 ITR 194 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly remarked "The provisions under Section 36(1) (iii) make no distinction between money borrowed to acquire a capital asset and a revenue asset. 8) Therefore, it is incorrect to stipulate that the interest paid has to be capitalized. The interest paid, if capitalized will not enable the benefit of write off as…

Tata Automcomp Systems Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 346/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 346/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Autocomp Systems The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer House, 24, Homi Mody Unit)-2, बनाम/ Street, Fort, Vs. Mummbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaact1848E आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5683/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Autocomp Systems Income Tax, (Large Limited, Taxpayer Unit)-2, World Bombay House, 24, Homi बनाम/ Trade Centre, Centre -1 , Mody Street, Fort, Vs. 29Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mummbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…pose of the 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.346 /Mum/2016,5683/mum/2015 Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. business is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC), wherein it is held as under: - “the legislature has, therefore, made no distinction in s. 36(1)(iii) between “capital borrowed for a revenue purpose” and “capital borrowed for a capital purpose”. An assessee is entitled to claim interest paid on borrowed capital provided that capital is used for business purpose irrespective of what may be…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Tata Autocomp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 346/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Autocomp Systems The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer House, 24, Homi Mody Unit)-2, बनाम/ Street, Fort, Vs. Mummbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaact1848E आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5683/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Autocomp Systems Income Tax, (Large Limited, Taxpayer Unit)-2, World Bombay House, 24, Homi बनाम/ Trade Centre, Centre -1 , Mody Street, Fort, Vs. 29Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mummbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…pose of the 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.346 /Mum/2016,5683/mum/2015 Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. business is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC), wherein it is held as under: - “the legislature has, therefore, made no distinction in s. 36(1)(iii) between “capital borrowed for a revenue purpose” and “capital borrowed for a capital purpose”. An assessee is entitled to claim interest paid on borrowed capital provided that capital is used for business purpose irrespective of what may be…

Kamesh Bhargava Hospital &, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

…nterest free advances. (iv) The ratio of the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) has been amplified, discussed and clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Core Health Care Ltd. (298 ITR 194) and M/s S.A. Builders Ltd. (288 ITR 1) and as the advances were given on the ground of commercial expediency, no disallowance is required to be made. 36. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the explanation of the assessee and disallowed proportionate interest of Rs. 5,15,119/-, computed @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid interest free advance…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 1461/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…v. Core Health Care [2001] 251 ITR 61. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the Commissioner of Income Tax has preferred the present appeal. "7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. We find that this Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 194/167 Taxman 206 has affirmed the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. 9. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the expenditure of Rs.3,37,84,348/- towards the interest paid on the loans taken and expenditure on other items connected herewith for establishment…

M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…v. Core Health Care [2001] 251 ITR 61. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the Commissioner of Income Tax has preferred the present appeal. "7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. We find that this Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 194/167 Taxman 206 has affirmed the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. 9. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the expenditure of Rs.3,37,84,348/- towards the interest paid on the loans taken and expenditure on other items connected herewith for establishment…

Muthoot Agri Development & Hospitalities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2249/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Muthoot Agri Development The Deputy Commissioner Of & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., M/S Income Tax-15(2)(2), Mumbai. Vs. Varma & Varma, Chartered Accountants, E-3, Sahasram, Elankom Gardens, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram- 695010 Pan No. Aagcm5045A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sukhsagar Syal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…est expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee files a copy of the audited accounts of the assessee and also the decision in Tetron Commercial Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 261 ITR 422 (Cal), DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC), CIT v. Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. (2013) 368 ITR 680 (Del) and submits that the assessee-company is incorporated for the purpose of carrying on real estate activities and this is the second year of operation. It is stated that the company had effected purchase of land in the first year of operation i.e. from 07.05.2010 to 31…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Technoart Constructions Pvt Ltd, Banaglore

In the result appeal filed by revenue for assessment year 2011-

ITA 1200/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member Ita Nos.1199 & 1200(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore Appellant Vs M/S Technoart Constructions Pvt.Ltd., No.19 & 19/1, Iii Floor, South End Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004 Pan No.Aaact5910B Respondent Revenue By : Sri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit Appellant By : Shri R. Chandrasekhar, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 143Section 234

…ank charges. It was submitted by assessee that the entire borrowed funds has been utilised for the purpose of business of assessee’s. Assessee had also placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of DCIT vs Care Healthcare Ltd., reported in 298 ITR 194. Both parties at the outset agrees that the factual metrics for year under consideration is same with that of immediately preceding assessment years. On perusal of assessment order is observed that ITA Nos.1199 & 1200(B)/2017 7 similar disallowance has been made in the preceding assessment years also. Ld. CIT (A) referring to his predecessors vie…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Vodafone Shared Services Ltd., (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Shared Services Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 124/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv. with Shri Bandish SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR

…t the time of hearing, the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that identical controversy has come up in group cases; namely, M/s.Vodafone West Ltd. AY 2009-10 wherein reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Core Healthcare Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) and the issue was adjudicated in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos.124/Ahd/2017, 162/Ahd/2016 1468/Ahd/2016 & 1923/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. Vodafone Shared Services Ltd. Asst.Years – 2012-13, 2010-11 & 2011-12 6.2, The Ld.DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 6.3. While we proceed to deal with the c…

Vodafone Business Services Limited ( Formerly Known As Vodafone Shared Services Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1923/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv. with Shri Bandish SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR

…t the time of hearing, the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that identical controversy has come up in group cases; namely, M/s.Vodafone West Ltd. AY 2009-10 wherein reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Core Healthcare Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) and the issue was adjudicated in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos.124/Ahd/2017, 162/Ahd/2016 1468/Ahd/2016 & 1923/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. Vodafone Shared Services Ltd. Asst.Years – 2012-13, 2010-11 & 2011-12 6.2, The Ld.DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 6.3. While we proceed to deal with the c…

The Jt. CIT, Range-8, Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone Shared Services Ltd., (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Shared Services Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 162/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv. with Shri Bandish SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR

…t the time of hearing, the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that identical controversy has come up in group cases; namely, M/s.Vodafone West Ltd. AY 2009-10 wherein reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Core Healthcare Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) and the issue was adjudicated in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos.124/Ahd/2017, 162/Ahd/2016 1468/Ahd/2016 & 1923/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. Vodafone Shared Services Ltd. Asst.Years – 2012-13, 2010-11 & 2011-12 6.2, The Ld.DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 6.3. While we proceed to deal with the c…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Vodafone Shared Services Ltd., (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Shared Services Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1468/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv. with Shri Bandish SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR

…t the time of hearing, the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that identical controversy has come up in group cases; namely, M/s.Vodafone West Ltd. AY 2009-10 wherein reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Core Healthcare Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) and the issue was adjudicated in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos.124/Ahd/2017, 162/Ahd/2016 1468/Ahd/2016 & 1923/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. Vodafone Shared Services Ltd. Asst.Years – 2012-13, 2010-11 & 2011-12 6.2, The Ld.DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 6.3. While we proceed to deal with the c…

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

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…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 I.T.A. No.2126 & 2749/DEL/2013 108 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. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…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 I.T.A. No.2126 & 2749/DEL/2013 108 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…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…duce Exchange Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT: 77 ITR 739 (SC) " B .R.Ltd. Vs. V.P.Gupta CIT Bombay: 113 ITR 647 (SC) " Veecumsees Vs. CIT 220 ITR 185 (SC) " DCIT, Baroda Vs. Gujarat Alkialier & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.: 299 ITR 85 (SC) " DCIT Vs. Core health Care Ltd. : 298 ITR 194 (SC) " CIT Vs. Modi Industries Ltd. (No. 3): 200 ITR 341(Delhi) " CIT Vs. Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited. : 181Taxman 5 (Delhi) " CIT Vs. Relaxo Footwears Ltd. : 293 ITR 231 (Delhi) " CIT Vs. Usha Iron & Ferro Metal Corp. Ltd. : 296 ITR 140 (Delhi) " CIT Vs. Rane (Madras) Ltd. : 293 ITR 459 (Delhi) " Indo rama Synthetics (I) Ltd.Vs. C…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…s, in facts, order of learned CIT – A deleting above addition/disallowance was upheld. Further issue is also squarely covered in favour of assessee by decision of honourable Supreme Court in case of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Core Healthcare Limited 298 ITR 194, CIT vs. Arvind Polycot limited 299 ITR 12 and CIT vs. Sri Rama multi Tech Ltd 393 ITR 371. Therefore respectfully following decision of coordinate bench in case of assessee for earlier year which is on identical facts and circumstances, we confirm order of learned CIT – A and dismiss ground number 8 of appeal of revenue. 19. The ground number 9…