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.

How many judgments cite DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.?

165 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. (298 ITR 194), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 14A, Section 142(2A), Section 2(22)(e).

DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. (298 ITR 194)

ACIT, Kota vs. Shiv Agrevo Ltd., Baran

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 453/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (JCIT)

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…o use even if it is for extension of existing business. Following facts are important for consideration. This proviso is to operate prospectively as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (SC) 298 ITR 194. In this proviso, the word ‘’extension’’ has been used which is to be taken as synonymous to the word ‘’expansion’’ which is used for Sections 801C(8)(ix) and 801E(7)(iii)[as held in case of Nahar Poly Films Ltd. Vs. CIT, Ludhiana 201 Taxman 304 (P&H)]. The word expansion is not different from extension of business and therefore the interest expe…

Bhansali Bright Baras P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Acit-5(1), Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 150, Madhav Bhavan, Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcb1544N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Darshak Shah Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 11/01/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. ACIT-5(1), Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 150, Madhav Bhavan, Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AABCB1544N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Darshak Shah Shri Suman Kumar-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 11/01/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 11/01/20…

ACIT, Trichy vs. Dhandapani Cements (P) Ltd., Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 836/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.836 & 1352/Mds/2014 & C.O. No. 54/2014 & 01/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos. 836 & 1352/Mds/2014)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT

…o. ITA No. 836, 1352 & 1851/Mds/14 :- 15 -: C.O. No. 54/14 & 01/Mds/15 First grievance raised by the Revenue is that ld. 37. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd (2008) 298 ITR 194 without considering the proviso which was added to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by Finance Act, 2003, while deleting an interest disallowance of "16,90,705/- Facts apropos are that assessee had acquired machinery 38. during the relevant previous year which as per ld. Assessing Officer were under erection at the close of the year. Ld. Assessing…

Dhandapani Cements (P) Ltd., Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1851/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.836 & 1352/Mds/2014 & C.O. No. 54/2014 & 01/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos. 836 & 1352/Mds/2014)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT

…o. ITA No. 836, 1352 & 1851/Mds/14 :- 15 -: C.O. No. 54/14 & 01/Mds/15 First grievance raised by the Revenue is that ld. 37. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd (2008) 298 ITR 194 without considering the proviso which was added to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by Finance Act, 2003, while deleting an interest disallowance of "16,90,705/- Facts apropos are that assessee had acquired machinery 38. during the relevant previous year which as per ld. Assessing Officer were under erection at the close of the year. Ld. Assessing…

ACIT, Trichy vs. Dhandapani Cements Pvt. Ltd., Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1352/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.836 & 1352/Mds/2014 & C.O. No. 54/2014 & 01/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos. 836 & 1352/Mds/2014)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT

…o. ITA No. 836, 1352 & 1851/Mds/14 :- 15 -: C.O. No. 54/14 & 01/Mds/15 First grievance raised by the Revenue is that ld. 37. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd (2008) 298 ITR 194 without considering the proviso which was added to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by Finance Act, 2003, while deleting an interest disallowance of "16,90,705/- Facts apropos are that assessee had acquired machinery 38. during the relevant previous year which as per ld. Assessing Officer were under erection at the close of the year. Ld. Assessing…

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2736/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, (CIT-DR)

Section 14ASection 253Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 35ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80MSection 86

…interest u/s 36(1)(iii) as revenue expenditure. The ld. AR of the assessee argued that though the section was amended only from AY 2004-05 and was not applicable for the order under consideration and relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (298 ITR 194). Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. 16. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and seen that the AO while making the disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act held that assessee in capitalizing the interest as integral part of the cost of work-in-progress is in accordance with the accepted principle of…

Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO is dismissed

ITA 8488/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh (AR)For Respondent: S/Shri A.G. Bhatkar-(CIT-DR) and K.V. Vispute- (DR)

Section 254(1)Section 43(6)

…riveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. and Others (DOD:05.08.2010) (Delhi – HC); 2. CIT vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Workers Ltd. – 261 ITR 721 (Kerla – HC); 3. SEDCO Forex International Drill INC and Others – 279 ITR 310 (SC) ; 4. DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. – 298 ITR 194 (SC); 5. CIT vs. Sree Senha Valli Textiles P. Ltd. – 259 ITR 77 (Mad. – HC); 6. CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. and others – Civil appeal No.8750 of 2014 decided on September 5, 2014. 20.We have perused the aforesaid decisions and found that the Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said decisions are unanimous to hold th…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…hose companies promotes the business interests of the assessee so that interest free advances to them could be justified on commercial expediency. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Core Health Care Ltd. (298 ITR 194) (supra), in which it has been held that once the capital has been borrowed for the purpose of business, interest has to be allowed irrespective of the fact whether the borrowed fund has been used for acquisition of capital assets or for revenue assets. The said judgment is not applicable as advancing interest free fund to the group companies is…

Rajendra H Salot, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4050/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Rajendra H. Salot, Ito-15(1)(4), 18, Maheswar Prakash, Mumbai बनाम/ Building No.1, Jain Derasar Vs. Lane, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aalps6170L

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Rajendra H. Salot, ITO-15(1)(4), 18, Maheswar Prakash, Mumbai बनाम/ Building No.1, Jain Derasar Vs. Lane, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AALPS6170L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Sanjiv M. Shah Shri Om Prakash Meena-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 28/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार…

M/S. Ici India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 852/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…nd allow accordingly. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. 56. At the outset, it was observed that issue is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the head note:- Business expenditure – Interest on borrowed capital-Acquisition of new machinery for existing business – Expression “for the purpose of business" occurring in s. 36(1)(iii) indicates that once the test of "for the purpose of business" is satisfied in respect of the capital borrowed, the assessee would be entitled to…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Ici India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1019/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…nd allow accordingly. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. 56. At the outset, it was observed that issue is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the head note:- Business expenditure – Interest on borrowed capital-Acquisition of new machinery for existing business – Expression “for the purpose of business" occurring in s. 36(1)(iii) indicates that once the test of "for the purpose of business" is satisfied in respect of the capital borrowed, the assessee would be entitled to…

M/S. Ici India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…nd allow accordingly. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. 56. At the outset, it was observed that issue is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the head note:- Business expenditure – Interest on borrowed capital-Acquisition of new machinery for existing business – Expression “for the purpose of business" occurring in s. 36(1)(iii) indicates that once the test of "for the purpose of business" is satisfied in respect of the capital borrowed, the assessee would be entitled to…

ACIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Ici India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2613/KOL/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…nd allow accordingly. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. 56. At the outset, it was observed that issue is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the head note:- Business expenditure – Interest on borrowed capital-Acquisition of new machinery for existing business – Expression “for the purpose of business" occurring in s. 36(1)(iii) indicates that once the test of "for the purpose of business" is satisfied in respect of the capital borrowed, the assessee would be entitled to…

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

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…Hotels Limited wherein if the interest expenditure is incurred for the purpose of business the deduction should be allowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Health Care Limited – 298 ITR 194 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that provisions of section 36(1)(iii) has to be read on its own term and it is a code by itself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that it does not make any difference whether the capital is borrowed for revenue purposes or for acquisition of capital assets, requirement of section is that the ass…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…Hotels Limited wherein if the interest expenditure is incurred for the purpose of business the deduction should be allowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Health Care Limited – 298 ITR 194 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that provisions of section 36(1)(iii) has to be read on its own term and it is a code by itself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that it does not make any difference whether the capital is borrowed for revenue purposes or for acquisition of capital assets, requirement of section is that the ass…

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” irrespective of what may be the result of using the capital which the assessee has borrowed. In relation to section 36(1)(iii) actual cost of an asset has not relevancy. Our view find supports from the decisions DCIT vs Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194, 199 (SC) and ratio laid down in Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd. vs ACIT (2009) 313 ITR 244, 246 (Del.). 2.7. We shall analyze the meaning of interest. The essence of interest is that it is payment which becomes due because the creditor has not had his money at his disposal. It may be regarded either as representing the profit he might…

M/S. Briggs Trading Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed

ITA 4683/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3723/Mum/2005 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., 135, Continental Bldg, -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3121/Mum/2006 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income 135, Continental Bldg, Tax -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4683/Mum/2007 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax 135, Continental Bldg, -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4681/Mum/2007 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., 135, Continental Bldg, Tax -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…ion of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Amirtaben R Shah (1999) (238 ITR 777). 11. In the rejoinder, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd (2008)(298 ITR 194) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court 7 ITA No.3723-/M/2005,3121/M/06, 4681/M/07 and 4683/Mum/2007 rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Phil Corporation Ltd & Anr (2011)(244 CTR (Bom) 226) to contend that the interest disallowance is not called for. 12. We have heard rival contentions on this issue. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has already t…

The ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Briggs Trading Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed

ITA 4681/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3723/Mum/2005 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., 135, Continental Bldg, -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3121/Mum/2006 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income 135, Continental Bldg, Tax -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4683/Mum/2007 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax 135, Continental Bldg, -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4681/Mum/2007 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., 135, Continental Bldg, Tax -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…ion of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Amirtaben R Shah (1999) (238 ITR 777). 11. In the rejoinder, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd (2008)(298 ITR 194) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court 7 ITA No.3723-/M/2005,3121/M/06, 4681/M/07 and 4683/Mum/2007 rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Phil Corporation Ltd & Anr (2011)(244 CTR (Bom) 226) to contend that the interest disallowance is not called for. 12. We have heard rival contentions on this issue. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has already t…

M/S. Briggs Trading Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed

ITA 3723/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3723/Mum/2005 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., 135, Continental Bldg, -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3121/Mum/2006 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income 135, Continental Bldg, Tax -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4683/Mum/2007 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax 135, Continental Bldg, -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4681/Mum/2007 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Briggs Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., 135, Continental Bldg, Tax -6(1), Vs. Dr.Annie Besant Road, Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…ion of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Amirtaben R Shah (1999) (238 ITR 777). 11. In the rejoinder, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd (2008)(298 ITR 194) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court 7 ITA No.3723-/M/2005,3121/M/06, 4681/M/07 and 4683/Mum/2007 rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Phil Corporation Ltd & Anr (2011)(244 CTR (Bom) 226) to contend that the interest disallowance is not called for. 12. We have heard rival contentions on this issue. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has already t…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sjs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 680/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

…ies. We find that during the year the assessee company’s bankers released additional terms loan totaling to Rs.54,85,000 for acquiring new machinery to enhance productivity and manufacturing capacities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC) has held that section 36(1)(iii) of the Act ITA No.680 & 660/Bang/2014 Page 25 of 26 makes no distinction between money borrowed to obtain a capital asset or a revenue asset; all that is required is that the assessee must borrow capital and the purpose of borrowing must be for business which is carried on by the assessee in the year of acc…

DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.

ACIT, Kota vs. Shiv Agrevo Ltd., Baran

Bhansali Bright Baras P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

ACIT, Trichy vs. Dhandapani Cements (P) Ltd., Trichy

Dhandapani Cements (P) Ltd., Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

ACIT, Trichy vs. Dhandapani Cements Pvt. Ltd., Trichy

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 1(1), Mumbai

Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

Rajendra H Salot, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai

M/S. Ici India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Ici India Ltd., Kolkata

M/S. Ici India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata

ACIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Ici India Ltd., Kolkata

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

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

E-City Investments & Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), Mumbai

M/S. Briggs Trading Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

The ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Briggs Trading Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

M/S. Briggs Trading Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 6(1), Mumbai

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sjs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore