Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. v. CIT (228 ITR 676)

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

ITA 1518/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 1Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…ble expense in the return of income. Ld. Assessing Officer has, relying on various decisions including decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of S Inder Singh Gill, 471 ITR 284, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kirloskar Electric Co Ltd. 228 ITR 676, Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Indian Overseas Bank 50 ITR 725 and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Jeevan Ltd vs CIT 48 ITR 170 and ITAT decision in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2005-06 held that the said amount is not liable to be allowed as deduction either u/s 37(1) or section 40(a)(ii). 16. We have examined th…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92(3)Section 92C

…of which no credit was granted is allowed as deduction as observed by the Ld.CIT(A). Page 23 IT(TP)A No. 245/Bang/2023 & (iii) He further submitted that, the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Kirloskar Electric Ltd v. CIT reported in (1997) 228 ITR 676 relied upon by the Revenue which is pronounced with respect to Assessment year 1982-83 is prior to insertion of Explanation 1 and 2 to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, is not applicable to the facts of the present case of the assessee. The Ld.DR on the contrary relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions adv…

ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/BANG/2023[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2013-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92(3)Section 92C

…of which no credit was granted is allowed as deduction as observed by the Ld.CIT(A). Page 23 IT(TP)A No. 245/Bang/2023 & (iii) He further submitted that, the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Kirloskar Electric Ltd v. CIT reported in (1997) 228 ITR 676 relied upon by the Revenue which is pronounced with respect to Assessment year 1982-83 is prior to insertion of Explanation 1 and 2 to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, is not applicable to the facts of the present case of the assessee. The Ld.DR on the contrary relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions adv…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE-7,, PUNE vs. M/S. ADRUS ESTATE AND PROPERTIES LLP,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 544/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.544/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Paridwala / Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendudas

…erence shares does not come under “borrowed funds”. This submission of the respondent / assessee company came to be accepted by ld.CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Vs. CIT 228 ITR 674 and no contrary position of law was pointed out to us by the Ld. Sr.D.R. Therefore, in the given facts and the legal position, it cannot be said that the land was acquired out of borrowed funds. The another fact considered by the Assessing Officer is that realization of huge profits at the time of sale of the land. The Hon’ble Madras High Court…

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3389/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…untry Amount (in Rs.) USA 12,27,39,648/- Canada 95,12,570/- Total 13,22,52,218/- Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 3 The Assessing Officer (AO) by relying on the decision in the case of S. Inder Singh Gill, 471 ITR 284 (Bom) and Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd., 228 ITR 676 (Karn.) held that the payments were not liable to be allowed as deduction either u/s 37(1) or section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the above ground by following the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 (ITA No. 7513/M/2010) dated 04.11.2015, wherein it is held that : “6. Since admittedly, the Trib…

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3262/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…untry Amount (in Rs.) USA 12,27,39,648/- Canada 95,12,570/- Total 13,22,52,218/- Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 3 The Assessing Officer (AO) by relying on the decision in the case of S. Inder Singh Gill, 471 ITR 284 (Bom) and Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd., 228 ITR 676 (Karn.) held that the payments were not liable to be allowed as deduction either u/s 37(1) or section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the above ground by following the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 (ITA No. 7513/M/2010) dated 04.11.2015, wherein it is held that : “6. Since admittedly, the Trib…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/139/2011HC Karnataka09 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260ASection 43B

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.139 OF 2011 BETWEEN 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 11(3) C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JINDAL VIJAYANAGAR STEEL LIMITED ) JINDAL MANSION, 5A, DR G DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI 400 026. ... RESPON…

SAKTHI AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1071/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1071/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Sakthi Auto Components The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No.180, Race Course, Company Circle – I(1), Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan : Aaecs 6536 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT

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

…lowable as deduction:- (a) Tingri tea Company Ltd. 79 ITR 294 (Cal.) (b) CIT v. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation 166 ITR 797 (Cal.) (c) Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills 143 ITR 469 (Bom.) (d) Kesar Sugar Works 140 CTR 431 (Bom.) (e) Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. 228 ITR 674 (Kar.) (f) CIT v. Phalton Sugar Works Ltd. 162 ITR 622 (Bom.) (g) CIT v. Belapur Co. Ltd. 161 ITR 516 (Bom.) 4 I.T.A. No. 1071/Mds/13 Accordingly, he submitted that the Ld. CIT has passed the impugned revision order on erroneous presumption about law and also about the facts prevailing in the case and hence the same is not sustainable. 4. On t…

Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Sections most often in play

Judgments citing Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. v. CIT