Milapchand R. Shah v. CIT

58 ITR 525High Court1965#18083 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Milapchand R. Shah v. CIT

Guardian Nutrition & Health Supplements Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6738/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…expediency, interest attributable to that portion would call for disallowance. This judicial view is well settled in a plethora of judgments and few of these are: CIT vs H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd. [1990] 53 Taxman 63 (ALL), Milapchand R. Shah vs CIT [1965] 58 ITR 525 (Mad.), Akarshan Builders vs ITO [ 2015] 60 taxmann.com 138 (Karnataka) , Crescent Organics (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT 2014 ] 49 taxmann.com 128 (Bombay HC), C. R. Auluck and Sons (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2014 ] 49 taxmann.com 21 (Punjab & Haryana), CIT vs Avery Cycle Inds Ltd. [2015 ] 56 taxmann.com 459 (Punjab & Haryana), CIT vs Subrata Roy [ 2013 ] 38 taxmann.…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 86/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…: Rs.18,24,738/- Total amount of interest chargeable : Rs.26,29,945/- 4.1 This total interest of Rs.26,29,945/- was disallowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) by the Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Milapchand R. Shah vs. CIT (58 ITR 525) and Roopchand Chanbildass & Sons vs. I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 CIT (63 ITR 166) and that of Allahabad High Court in the case of Marolia & Sons vs. CIT (129 ITR 475). Similar disallowance was made for the assessment year 2010-11 at Rs.24,37.980/- and for 2011-12 at Rs.27,93,606/-. 5. According to the CIT(A), if any amounts are…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 85/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…: Rs.18,24,738/- Total amount of interest chargeable : Rs.26,29,945/- 4.1 This total interest of Rs.26,29,945/- was disallowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) by the Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Milapchand R. Shah vs. CIT (58 ITR 525) and Roopchand Chanbildass & Sons vs. I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 CIT (63 ITR 166) and that of Allahabad High Court in the case of Marolia & Sons vs. CIT (129 ITR 475). Similar disallowance was made for the assessment year 2010-11 at Rs.24,37.980/- and for 2011-12 at Rs.27,93,606/-. 5. According to the CIT(A), if any amounts are…

M/S.Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 409/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…: Rs.18,24,738/- Total amount of interest chargeable : Rs.26,29,945/- 4.1 This total interest of Rs.26,29,945/- was disallowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) by the Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Milapchand R. Shah vs. CIT (58 ITR 525) and Roopchand Chanbildass & Sons vs. I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 CIT (63 ITR 166) and that of Allahabad High Court in the case of Marolia & Sons vs. CIT (129 ITR 475). Similar disallowance was made for the assessment year 2010-11 at Rs.24,37.980/- and for 2011-12 at Rs.27,93,606/-. 5. According to the CIT(A), if any amounts are…

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)

…own business and the proportionate interest on such advancing of loan need to be disallowed. In the case of Marolia & Sons vs. CIT(1981) 129 ITR 475 (ALL), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court relying heavily on the decisions of Milapchand R. Shah vs. CIT (1965) 58 ITR 525 (Mad) and Roopchand Chabildass & Sons vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 166 (Mad) has held that if the capital borrowed is not utilised for the purposes of the business, the assessee will not be entitled to deduction under this clause. In case, after having borrowed the capital for business purposes, the firm gives the same to its partners for their personal…

Milapchand R. Shah v. CIT (58 ITR 525) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax