Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT

118 ITR 200Supreme Court of India1979#826 most cited

What is Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT authority for?

Interest on borrowed funds is deductible as a business expense under section 36(1)(iii) if incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, not for sentimental or personal reasons. The phrase 'for the purpose of business' is broader than 'for the purpose of earning income'.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT · section 36(1)(iii) · business expenditure · commercial expediency · interest on borrowed funds · deduction · purpose of business · earning income · broader scope

Also reported as

10 CTR 375

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 14ASection 148Section 133(6)Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituresection 92batrue and full disclosuresanction under section 151deletion of penaltytransfer pricing orderinterest free advancesfresh tangible materialsection 148(2)sanctioning authoritysection 57(iii)specified domestic transaction

Judgments citing Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Katni, Katni vs. J.P Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd, Damoh

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.93 & 94/Jab/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEARs- 2016-17 &2017-18) ACIT, vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd., Circle-Katni. Seth Prahladbhai Patel Marg, Patharia Pathak, Damoh-470661. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACJ7141G Assessee By Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR Date of hearing 21/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M.: These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the separate order,…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-Katni, Katni vs. J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd, Damoh

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 93/JAB/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.93 & 94/Jab/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEARs- 2016-17 &2017-18) ACIT, vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd., Circle-Katni. Seth Prahladbhai Patel Marg, Patharia Pathak, Damoh-470661. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACJ7141G Assessee By Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR Date of hearing 21/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M.: These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the separate order,…

Jagson International Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1), Delhi

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

ITA 902/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

…29 SOT 531 (Mum) Metro Exports Ltd. vs. ITO g) 20 SOT 47 (Mum) Tata Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT h) 194 CTR 451 (All) CIT vs. RadicoKhaitan Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression "for the purposes of Business & Profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression occurring in Section 57(iii), meaning thereby that the scope for allowing a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) would be much wider than the one available under Section 57(iii). This phrase, as held…

JCIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1303/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

…29 SOT 531 (Mum) Metro Exports Ltd. vs. ITO g) 20 SOT 47 (Mum) Tata Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT h) 194 CTR 451 (All) CIT vs. RadicoKhaitan Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression "for the purposes of Business & Profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression occurring in Section 57(iii), meaning thereby that the scope for allowing a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) would be much wider than the one available under Section 57(iii). This phrase, as held…

M/S. Sunil & Company, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JODH/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…reach of fundamental tenates of accounts as enshrined in AS-9 of ICAI and income would not present true and fair picture. k. The expression for the purpose of business was explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT (SC), 118 ITR 200 (SC) by referring to the decision of Malyalam Plantation, 53 ITR 140 (SC), wherein it was held as It cannot be disputed that the expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in s 10(2) (ii) as also in 10(2) (xv) is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning income profits or gains" occurring in s 12[2] of the Act and, th…

ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4864/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…ly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Id. CIT(A) who has relied upon the following decisions: a)CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd 53 ITR 140 (SC) b) CIT V Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd 82 ITR 166 [SC] c) Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT 118 ITR 200 [SC] 8. Reliance was also placed by the Id. counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.J. Enterprises Vs. CIT reported at 254 ITR 216 [SC] where, as per the ‘Head Notes’, it has been held as under: "In its principal order, the Tribunal had concluded that the addition was unsustainable because it had be…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1125/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ons: i. Campa Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1990] 34 ITD 241 (Delhi) ii. CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 82 ITR 166 (SC) iv. Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 200 (SC) v. S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC) 21. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has not furnished any evidence at all to establish on record that the liability has actually accrued and not in the 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 45…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1124/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ons: i. Campa Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1990] 34 ITD 241 (Delhi) ii. CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 82 ITR 166 (SC) iv. Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 200 (SC) v. S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC) 21. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has not furnished any evidence at all to establish on record that the liability has actually accrued and not in the 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 45…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4589/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ons: i. Campa Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1990] 34 ITD 241 (Delhi) ii. CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 82 ITR 166 (SC) iv. Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 200 (SC) v. S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC) 21. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has not furnished any evidence at all to establish on record that the liability has actually accrued and not in the 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 45…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4588/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ons: i. Campa Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1990] 34 ITD 241 (Delhi) ii. CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 82 ITR 166 (SC) iv. Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 200 (SC) v. S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC) 21. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has not furnished any evidence at all to establish on record that the liability has actually accrued and not in the 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 45…

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3449/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ons: i. Campa Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1990] 34 ITD 241 (Delhi) ii. CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 82 ITR 166 (SC) iv. Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 200 (SC) v. S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC) 21. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has not furnished any evidence at all to establish on record that the liability has actually accrued and not in the 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 45…

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3448/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ons: i. Campa Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1990] 34 ITD 241 (Delhi) ii. CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) iii. CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 82 ITR 166 (SC) iv. Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 200 (SC) v. S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC) 21. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has not furnished any evidence at all to establish on record that the liability has actually accrued and not in the 12 | P a g e ITA Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 45…

Rain Cements Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Advocate Prathishta Singh &For Respondent: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

…ii). Therefore. the scope for allowing u deduction u/s. 36(1) (ii) is much wider than the one vail-able u/s. 57(iii), " While pronouncing the above ruling, the High Court of Delhi referred 1o the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahadev Prasad Jatia (118 ITR 200) in which, while dealing with similar provisions under the old Act, the Apex Court bad observed that to be entitled to such deduction the conditions required to be fulfilled were: (a) that money (capital) must have been borrowed by the assessee, (b) that it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business, and (c) that the assessee must have p…

Asuda Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mumbai

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

ITA 2854/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50(1)Section 50(2)

…The assessee must have paid interest on the borrowed amount l.e. he has shown the same as an item of expenditure. The above mentioned three conditions have been established legally by Supreme Court judgement in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC). 7) Now, on page 5 para 5.9 of the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014- 15 dated 5th December 2016, the Assessing Officer has relied on the Honourable Supreme Courts decision in case of S.A. Builders Ltd., reported in 288 ITR1 in which the concept of "Commercial Expediency" was used. 8)…

The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Obulapuram Mining

ITA/100091/2016HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37

…e nature of a contingent liability relating to levy of sales-tax. Allowability of interest is covered by s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The said provision corresponds to s 10(2)(ii) of the old Act. In Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT (1979) 10 CTR (SC) 375: (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC): TC 15R.823, the apex Court observed that the conditions required to be fulfilled to be entitled to deduction were that the interest must have been paid on borrowings incurred for the purpose of the business. The conditions laid down were as follows: (a) that money (capital) must have been borrowed by the assessee, (b) that it must ha…

M/S. Rmz Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…a term of wide import and includes such expenditure for which there may not be any legal obligation but is incurred for the purpose of the business. It referred to its earlier judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia V: CIT (1979) 10 CTR (SC) 375 : (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) where the borrowed amount was donated to a college with a view to commemorate the memory of the assessee's deceased husband after whom the college was to be named. It was held that if the borrowed amount was donated for some sentimental or personal reasons then it could not be said that it was for commercial expediency. In the present case,…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Power Links Transmission Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 7322/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…greement with the lenders of capital. As per the agreement, the appellant was compulsorily to keep a deposit in the bank and not withdraw it. 6.3. The appellant has quoted the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT, AIR 1979 SC 1291: 118 ITR 200, 208. 6.4. The judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Reliance Utility & Power Ltd. as well as Woolcombers of India Ltd. and of the apex court in the case of East India Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has held that if there are funds available with the appellant then the presumption would arise that investment would be out of interest free funds…

Savla Agencies, Allahabad vs. JCIT, Range-I, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 28/ALLD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2011-12 Savla Agencies, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 26, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Range-I, Allahabad Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aawfs0816J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Tanmay Sadh, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. Tanmay Sadh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 40

…firm and so on his capital remained with the assessee firm, no interest shall be allowed u/s 40(b). Furthermore, interest is allowed as a deduction on borrowed capital u/s 36(1)(ii) of the income Tax Act, 1961. In the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs CIT(1979) 118 ITR 200, their lordships have held that under sec.36(1)(ii) three conditions are required to be satisfied in order to enable the assessee to claim a deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital, namely.(a) that money(capital) must have been borrowed by the assessee, (b) that it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business, and (c) that the…

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 6806/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc Complex Patel Road, Opp Pawan Bandra (E), Mumbia – Hans, Vile Parle (W) 400 051. Mumbai – 400 056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)) - 37, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 U/Sec Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande.DRFor Respondent: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57Section 68

…ding also occurs in Section 57(iii) which reads as "for the purpose of making or earning income". This issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression occurring in Section 57(iii). Thus, meaning thereby that the scope for allowing a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) would be much wider than the one available under Section 57(iii).This phrase, as held by many legal pronouncement, is the mos…

DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5375/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6872/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 ITA No. 5375/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 DCIT, Vs Jagson International Ltd., 3rd Floor, Vandana Building, 11, Circle-13(1), New Delhi-110002 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ2147A CO No. 83/Del/2022 (in ITA No. 6872/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16) Jagson International Ltd., Vs DCIT, 3rd Floor, Vandana Building, 11, Circle-13(1), Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New De…