Karnataka Forest Plantations Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT

156 ITR 275High Court1985#8058 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 263 Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)(c)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 57(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 142(2)section 57(iii)revision u/s 263 transfer of capital asset section 57 section 54f malabar industrial section 54 capital expenditure principal commissioner of income-tax section 253 section 119

Judgments citing Karnataka Forest Plantations Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI 3 , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2798/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai(Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Am) Small Industries Development Principal Bank Of India Commissioner Of I.T. Swavalamban Bhavan, C-11 Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th G Block, Bandra Kurala Floor, Aayakar Complex, Bandra East Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aabcs3480N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Chhajed &

Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…f the I.T. Act, that the issue is now covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (1998) 96 Taxmann.com 641 (SC) and further held that the decision of Karnatak State Financial Vs. CIT 174 ITR 206 was not correct. The Ld. PCIT at para 6 and 7, page 7 of his order has mentioned as follows :- 6. The submissions of the assessee have been considered very carefully but the same is not acceptable. The assessee has relied on decision of ITAT in its own case for AY 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 dated 23.08.2018 with regard to re-working of…

SHANTILAL BACHUBHAI RITA,GOREGAON WEST vs. ITO ,WARD 31(1)(9),MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2356/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshantilal Bachubhai Rita Vs Ito, Ward 31(1)(9), Mumbai C-33, Sai Baba Enclave Room No.536, 5H Floor, Kautilya Building No.3, S.V. Road, Near Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Citi Centre, Goregaon West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 104 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aetpr2071R Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.D. ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangerpatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

…d decisions relied upon by the learned DR are factually distinguishable. 11. Further, the learned DR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Forest Plantations Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (1985) 156 ITR 275 (Karnataka). From the perusal of the aforesaid decision, we find that the Hon’ble Court disallowed the deduction claimed under section 57(iii) of the Act on the basis that the surplus funds arising 7 ITA 2356/Mum/2024 Shantilal Bachubhai Rita on account of the amount borrowed by the taxpayer from the State Government and banks from time to time…

SHANTIBEN K RITA,GOREGAON WEST vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(4), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailshantiben K Rita, 1601, Laburnum Tower, Sv Road, Goregaon West, ……………. Appellant Mumbai - 400104 Pan – Aecpr3455A V/S Ito, Ward-41(4)(4), ……………. Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai Maharashtra Assessee By : Shri Surji D. Chheda, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Surji D. Chheda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

…decisions relied upon by the learned DR are factually distinguishable. 11. Further, the learned DR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Forest Plantations Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (1985) 156 ITR 275 (Karnataka). From the perusal of the aforesaid decision, we find that the Hon’ble Court disallowed the deduction claimed under section 57(iii) of the Act on the basis that the surplus funds arising on account of the amount borrowed by the taxpayer from the State Government and banks from time to time for its business operation got deposited by th…

DCIT vs. M/S FIZA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTER PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, all the miscellaneous petitions are allowed

ITA 985/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 263Section 54FSection 57

…ngs. The interest expenditure is incurred not for the purpose of earning income, but it is on the borrowings used for investment in CGDA scheme. At this stage, it is appropriate to place reliance on the case of Karnataka Forest Plantations Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT, 156 ITR 275 (Kar) wherein it was held as under:- “12. The borrowings were not made to make investments and earn interest from them. The borrowed amounts kept in short- term deposits undoubtedly yielded interest. The interest income from such deposits was from such deposits only and was incidental to and was the result of the same. The interest income was to…

ARJUN M RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 692/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 263Section 54FSection 57

…ngs. The interest expenditure is incurred not for the purpose of earning income, but it is on the borrowings used for investment in CGDA scheme. At this stage, it is appropriate to place reliance on the case of Karnataka Forest Plantations Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT, 156 ITR 275 (Kar) wherein it was held as under:- Page 17 of 22 “12. The borrowings were not made to make investments and earn interest from them. The borrowed amounts kept in short- term deposits undoubtedly yielded interest. The interest income from such deposits was from such deposits only and was incidental to and was the result of the same. The interes…

GURU PAVAN RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 677/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 263Section 54FSection 57

ANIRUDH MURTHY RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 676/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 263Section 54FSection 57

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri M. Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income-tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN – AAACE 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee by: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date of hearing: 15/03/2021 Date of pronouncement: 30/04/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is directed against CIT(A) – 7, Hyderabad’s order dated 2…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), HUBLI vs. M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK , DHARWAD

In the result the disallowance made of Rs

ITA 2054/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…s per his own method which is not as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and as per method of calculation of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of Act worked out by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. CIT (1988) 174 ITR 206). 14. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the Assessee observing as follows:- “20. Ground of appeal No.5 Disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viii) Rs.6,97,63,000/-: The AO in the assessment order has worked out the deduction to be allowed u/s. 36(I)(viii) of the Act. As against the claim made of Rs.11,52,00,000/- the AO has allowed Rs.45,43,7000/- u/s. 36(1)(v…

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1716/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt.Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…nditure is allowable as deduction when it is paid on monies used for acquiring asset from which income derived is assessable under the head “income from other sources”. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Forest Plantation v. CIT [(1985) 156 ITR 275 (Kar.)], wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Court that when the assessee after borrowing amount for the purpose of business, had kept part of it in short deposit in bank, and the interest paid on amount borrowed was not deductible from interest earned from short term deposits, as borrowing was not for the purpose of earning such interest income.…

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1715/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt.Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 234B

SH. DHARAM PAL AGGARWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 57

…placed on the following case laws: • Smt. Padmawati Jaikrishna Vs. Addl. CIT 166 ITR 176 (SC) • Mrs. Arundhati Balkrishna Vs. CIT, Ahmedabad. 177 ITR 275 (SC) • Vijay Laxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 191 ITR 647 (SC) • Karnataka Forest Plantations Corpn. Ltd. 156 ITR 275 (Karnataka HC) • CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) • Smt. Virmati Ramakrishan Vs. CIT 131ITR 659 (Guj. HC) 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the similar interest paid on the loans was disallowed by the A.O.…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 750/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 23

…also relied on several decisions which make it abundantly clear that when the wordings in a section are clear and specific, it has to be followed without imputing or assigning any other meaning or intention. i) Karnataka Forest Plantations Corpn.Ltd., Vs CIT 156 ITR 275 (Kar.) ii) Karnataka State Financial Corpn. Vs CIT 174 ITR 206(Kar.) iii)Ramachandra Mardaraja Deo Vs CIT 27 ITR 667(Ori) iv) R Gao Electrodes Ltd., Vs CIT 173 ITR 351 (Ker.) v) Haji Mohammad Usman & Sons Vs CIT 25 ITR 2252 (Nag.) It is quite apparent from the above analysis that the appellant’s eligibility for the said deduction from the standp…

BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

ITA 671/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr CounselFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT-I

Section 154Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. A.Y. Appellant V Respondent s 1 671(Bang)/2011 2005-06 M/s Bosch Limited, ACIT, LTU, Hosur Road, Adugodi, Bangalore Bangalore 2 IT(TP) No. 2005-06 ACIT, LTU, M/s Bosch Limited, 719(Bang)/2011 Bangalore Hosur Road, Bangalore 3 672(Bang)/2011 2006-07 M/s Bosch Limited, ACIT, LTU, Hosur Road, Bangalore Bangalore 4 665(Bang)/2011 2006-07 DCIT, LTU, M/s Bosch Limited, Bangalore Hosur Road, Bangalore 5 1211(Bang)/2015 2006-07 M/s Bosch Limited, DCIT, LTU,…