(Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (

173 ITR 577High Court1988#19513 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37(1)Section 57(iii)

Judgments citing (Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (

J.K. Jewellers, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the disallowance of interest sustained by the ld

ITA 100/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2018

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Add. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 57

…erest as and when the amount is recovered and interest is received. Disallowance on notional basis deserves to be deleted. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (i) Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) (ii) LM Thaper Vs. CIT (1988) 173 ITR 577. (ii) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd Vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 836. The employees of today may become the ex- employees tomorrow. Any expenditure laid out or expended for their benefit, if it satisfies the other 16 J. K. Jewellers vs. ACIT requirements, must be allowed as deduction under s. 37(1). The fact that somebody other than the assessee is also bene…

Triumph Hospitals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5735/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Triumph Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 801 & 802, Raheja Central Circle-29, बनाम/ Empress, Veer Savarkar Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marg, Prabhadevi, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400025 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabct4993K

Section 28Section 3Section 36(1)(iii)Section 9

…ar Ltd 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) and Amma Bai Hajee Issa vs CIT 51 ITR 835 (Mad.) 2.4. The expression “for the purposes on business” is wider in scope than “for the purposes of earning income” (Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT (118 ITR 200)(SC) and L.M. Thappar vs CIT 173 ITR 577 (Cal.). Interest on borrowal is allowable as deduction only when the borrowals are used for the purpose of business. In S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT (supra), where holding company had a deep interest in its subsidiary and the holding company advances borrowed money to its subsidiary, the same was used by the subsidiary for business purposes, the…

Bhansali Bright Baras P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Acit-5(1), Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 150, Madhav Bhavan, Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcb1544N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Darshak Shah Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 11/01/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…amachar Ltd 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) and Amma Bai Hajee Issa vs CIT 51 ITR 835 (Mad.) 2.6. The expression “for the purposes on business” is wider in scope than “for the purposes of earning income” (Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT (118 ITR 200)(SC) and L.M. Thappar vs CIT 173 ITR 577 (Cal.). Interest on borrowal is allowable as deduction only when the borrowals are used for the purpose of business. In S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT (supra), where holding company had a deep interest in its subsidiary and the holding company advances borrowed money to its subsidiary, the same was used by the subsidiary for business purposes, the hol…

Rajendra H Salot, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4050/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Rajendra H. Salot, Ito-15(1)(4), 18, Maheswar Prakash, Mumbai बनाम/ Building No.1, Jain Derasar Vs. Lane, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aalps6170L

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40

…machar Lted 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) and Amma Bai Hajee Issa vs CIT 51 ITR 835 (Mad.) 3.2. The expression “for the purposes on business” is wider in scope than “for the purposes of earning income” (Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT (118 ITR 200)(SC) and L.M. Thappar vs CIT 173 ITR 577 (Cal.). Interest on borrowal is allowable as deduction only when the borrowals are used for 5 Rajendra H Salot the purpose of business. In S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT (supra), where holding company had a deep interest in its subsidiary and the holding company advances borrowed money to its subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for busi…