Kaviraj Mahipat Singh v. CIT

175 CTR 310High Court#23131 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 142(2)section 57(iii)revision u/s 263transfer of capital assetsection 54fmalabar industrialsection 57section 54principal commissioner of income-taxsection 253section 119long term capital gains

Judgments citing Kaviraj Mahipat Singh v. CIT

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

…liability of making the deposit. The test to apply is that the expenditure should be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the income. Accordingly, interest paid by the assessee could not be allowed as a deduction. - Kaviraj Mahipat Singh v. CIT, 175 CTR 310 (Raj) where the Assessee took loans from banks against fixed deposits held by him in same banks. He received interest on said deposits and also paid interest on loan. 70 per cent of loan amount was used for construction of house and balance for business purpose. ITO rejected assessee’s claim that only net interest income was taxable and disallowe…

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

…liability of making the deposit. The test to apply is that the expenditure should be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the income. Accordingly, interest paid by the assessee could not be allowed as a deduction. - Kaviraj Mahipat Singh v. CIT, 175 CTR 310 (Raj) where the Assessee took loans from banks against fixed deposits held by him in same banks. He received interest on said deposits and also paid interest on loan. 70 per cent of loan amount was used for construction of house and balance for business purpose. ITO rejected assessee’s claim that only net interest income was taxable and disallowe…

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

…liability of making the deposit. The test to apply is that the expenditure should be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the income. Accordingly, interest paid by the assessee could not be allowed as a deduction. - Kaviraj Mahipat Singh v. CIT, 175 CTR 310 (Raj) where the Assessee took loans from banks against fixed deposits held by him in same banks. He received interest on said deposits and also paid interest on loan. 70 per cent of loan amount was used for construction of house and balance for business purpose. ITO rejected assessee’s claim that only net interest income was taxable and disallowe…

Kaviraj Mahipat Singh v. CIT (175 CTR 310) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax