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.

CIT vs. Career Launcher India Ltd

In the result, the first three substantiaf questions of larry in ITA

ITA/911/2011HC Delhi19 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…interest on the debt cannot be allowed as business I L, expenditure. 11. It is not necessary to discuss the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. "fCT vs DCIT, (2005) 276 ITF. 1t5 (Cal.) and Depwty CIT v. Core l:Ieatrtlt Care Ltd., (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) are cases in which there was an act of boi'rowing of capital and not a mere incurring of a debt otherwise than by way of a borrowing. The judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rn CIT v. Swnil X{umar Sharma, (2002) 254 ITR 103 has no doubt distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Steam'Navigation Co.Ltd. (sr"rpra) but t…

CIT vs. Career Launcher (India) Ltd

In the result, the first thlee substantiaf questions of larv in ITA

ITA/926/2011HC Delhi19 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 194CSection 260ASection 36

…efore the interest on the debt cannot be allowed as business expenditure. 11. It is not necessary to discusi the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. "fCT vs DCIT, (2005) 276 ITF. 115 (Cal.) andDeputJ) cIT v. core xreakh cnre Ltll,(2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) are cases in which there was an act of borrowing of capital and not a a mere incurring of a debt otherwise than by way of a.borrowing- The judgment of the Punjab &Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sunil Kwmar l Sharmu, (2002) 254 ITR 103 has no doubf distinguished the judgrnent of the Supreme Court in Bombay Steam.,Navigation Co.Ltd. (supra) but…

CIT vs. Career Launcher India Ltd

In the result, the first three substantiaf questions of larry in ITA

ITA - 911 / 2011HC Delhi19 Apr 2012
Section 260ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…interest on the debt cannot be allowed as business I L, expenditure. 11. It is not necessary to discuss the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. "fCT vs DCIT, (2005) 276 ITF. 1t5 (Cal.) and Depwty CIT v. Core l:Ieatrtlt Care Ltd., (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) are cases in which there was an act of boi'rowing of capital and not a mere incurring of a debt otherwise than by way of a borrowing. The judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rn CIT v. Swnil X{umar Sharma, (2002) 254 ITR 103 has no doubt distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Steam'Navigation Co.Ltd. (sr"rpra) but t…

CIT vs. Career Launcher (India) Ltd

In the result, the first thlee substantiaf questions of larv in ITA

ITA - 926 / 2011HC Delhi19 Apr 2012
Section 194CSection 260ASection 36

…efore the interest on the debt cannot be allowed as business expenditure. 11. It is not necessary to discusi the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. "fCT vs DCIT, (2005) 276 ITF. 115 (Cal.) andDeputJ) cIT v. core xreakh cnre Ltll,(2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) are cases in which there was an act of borrowing of capital and not a a mere incurring of a debt otherwise than by way of a.borrowing- The judgment of the Punjab &Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sunil Kwmar l Sharmu, (2002) 254 ITR 103 has no doubf distinguished the judgrnent of the Supreme Court in Bombay Steam.,Navigation Co.Ltd. (supra) but…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Career Launcher India Ltd

In the result, the first three substantial questions of law in ITA

ITA/939/2010HC Delhi19 Apr 2012
Section 194CSection 260ASection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…the interest on the debt cannot be allowed as business expenditure. 11. It is not necessary to discuss the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. JCT vs DCIT, (2005) 276 ITR 115 (Cal.) and Deputy CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd., (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) are cases in which there was an act of borrowing of capital and not a mere incurring of a debt otherwise than by way of a borrowing. The judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2002) 254 ITR 103 has no doubt distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Steam Navigation Co.Ltd. (supra) but…