M/s. Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

114 ITR 654High Court#22056 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing M/s. Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

Essar Power Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1849/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri K. S. Rajendrakumar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 271Section 36

…iii), therefore, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the entire borrowed funds were used for the purpose of business and retained in the business during the relevant year. In this respect reliance is placed on case of M/s. Kishanchand Chellaram Vs. CIT [114 ITR 654 (Bom.)]. In this case, it was held that deduction of interest paid on borrowed capital is allowable only if the capital was borrowed as well as used for the purpose of business. The facts of this case are squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. The purpose for which the amount given to VPCL cannot be held as 'business purpose' and assess…

E-City Investments & Holdings Comapny P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

ITA 1153/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…We are aware that where the borrowed money are not use for “purposes of business” but are utilized for meeting personal obligation of the assessee himself (Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT) 118 ITR 200 (SC), or for paying tax liability (Kishanchand Chelaram vs CIT) 114 ITR 654 (Bom.), or are given over to partners for their personal use, the claim of the interest is not allowable. But for such disallowance, a finding of fact, based on relevant material, is necessary as was held in CIT vs R.K. Metal Works 112 ITR 445 (Punjab). In Veecumsess vs CIT (1996) 220 ITR 185, 190 (SC), their lordship of the Apex Court have take…

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)

…business” but are utilized for meeting personal obligation of the assessee himself (Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT) 118 ITR 200 (SC), or for paying tax liability (Kishanchand 34 E-City Investment & Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.8382/Mum/11 Chelaram vs CIT) 114 ITR 654 (Bom.), or are given over to partners for their personal use, the claim of the interest is not allowable. But for such disallowance, a finding of fact, based on relevant material, is necessary as was held in CIT vs R.K. Metal Works 112 ITR 445 (Punjab). In Veecumsess vs CIT (1996) 220 ITR 185, 190 (SC), their lordship of the Apex Court have take…