What is Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax authority for?

Interest paid on borrowed capital is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) only when the capital is used for the assessee's own business, not if advanced to a subsidiary company. This restrictive view was later overruled by the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(iii), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 1961, Section 10(34), Section 250.

Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (208 ITR 989)

Q: How many judgments cite Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax?

54 judgments on BharatTax cite Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (208 ITR 989), spanning 2006 to 2025.

Manglayatan Projects P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands Partly

ITA 5527/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Manglayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-04, A-86, Gali No. 9, New Delhi Chander Vihar, Mandawali, New Delhi (Pan: Aaicm3804H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Prateek Mittal, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…o the contrary which gave a limited interpretations to the scope of the phrase "for the purposes of business or profession" used in section 36(1)(iii). This decision overruled the Bombay High Court decisions in the case of Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. reported in 208 ITR 989 and 215 ITR 582, and approved the Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377. Subsequent to this decision of the Apex Court, the Dept. filed an SLP against the Delhi High Court's decision in Addl. CIT vs Tulips Star Hotels Ltd. reported in 338 ITR 482 wherein the High Court had held that the interest liabil…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. T Bhimjyani Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeea.Y : 2018-19 :

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y : 2018-19 : Asst. CIT 14(1)(2), Vs. T Bhimjyani Realty Private Mumbai Ltd., (Appellant) 301, A Wing, 3rd Floor, Fortune 2000, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 PAN AAFCR4733F (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Vijay Mehta Date of Hearing : 06/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16/01/2025 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 08-07-2024 passed…

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

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

…What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

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

…What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

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

…What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

ACIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2349/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024

Section 36(1)(iii)

…evenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 98 Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 989 (Bom) in Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 98 which it was held that deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if which it was held that deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if which it was held that deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the inter…

ACIT 32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2322/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024

Section 36(1)(iii)

…evenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 98 Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 989 (Bom) in Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 98 which it was held that deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if which it was held that deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if which it was held that deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the inter…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri. Moolchandkiran Kumar Income Tax, V. Jain, Central Circle -1(4), No. 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)”), Chennai, Dated 15.11.2022 Against The Assessment Order U/S.153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter In Short "The Act”) For :-2-: Ita. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 32. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(4), Chennai vs. Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri. Moolchandkiran Kumar Income Tax, V. Jain, Central Circle -1(4), No. 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)”), Chennai, Dated 15.11.2022 Against The Assessment Order U/S.153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter In Short "The Act”) For :-2-: Ita. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 32. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 3031/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash BohraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3031/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) ITA no.3004/Mum./2023 ITA no.3030/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) (Assessment Year : 2014-15) DCIT-19(3) Room No. 513, Fifth Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, ……………. Appellant Parel, Maharashtra-400012 v/s Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya 150, Mumba devi Road, ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400002 PAN- AABPS5177K Assessee by :Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash Bohra Shri Ketan Jain Revenue by :Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date o…

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 3030/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash BohraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3031/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) ITA no.3004/Mum./2023 ITA no.3030/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) (Assessment Year : 2014-15) DCIT-19(3) Room No. 513, Fifth Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, ……………. Appellant Parel, Maharashtra-400012 v/s Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya 150, Mumba devi Road, ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400002 PAN- AABPS5177K Assessee by :Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash Bohra Shri Ketan Jain Revenue by :Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date o…

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 3004/MUM/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash BohraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3031/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) ITA no.3004/Mum./2023 ITA no.3030/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) (Assessment Year : 2014-15) DCIT-19(3) Room No. 513, Fifth Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, ……………. Appellant Parel, Maharashtra-400012 v/s Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya 150, Mumba devi Road, ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400002 PAN- AABPS5177K Assessee by :Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash Bohra Shri Ketan Jain Revenue by :Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date o…

Annavaram Kosuri -DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2889/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs. Rajendra Rameshchandra 19(3), Mumbai. Chaturvedi Premises No. 1, 2, 4Th Floor, (Appellant) Shreepati Arcade, Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400 036. Pan:Aczpc5041Q (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &

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

…s of Rs.153,88,65,770/- and the interest free loans and advances given are to the extent of Rs.101,90,48,922/-. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs CWT, 208 ITR 989 (Bom.) and Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs CIT, 215 ITR 582 (Bom) are misplaced as the said decisions have been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs Commissioner of 6 Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi Income Tax (Appeals), 288 ITR 1 (SC). He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference.…

J.P Tobaco Producta Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - Sagar, Sagasr

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 128/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 37(1)Section 40

…What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36/1)(i) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the vie…

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Sagar

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 37(1)Section 40

…What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36/1)(i) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the vie…

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 263/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 37(1)Section 40

…What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36/1)(i) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the vie…

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,…

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

…ITA No.954/Bang/2022 M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited The Millenia Level 1 & 14, No.1 & 2 Murphy Road NFAC Vs. Ulsoor Delhi Bangalore 560 008. PAN NO : AADCR3654H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of Hearing : 08.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023 O R D E R This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dat…

DCIT, CC 4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5766/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh M. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)Section 68

…l expenditure and the capacity installed and put to use duly certified and ratified by the engineer's of the Electricity Boards. 4.4 In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Phalton Sugar Works Limited Vs CIT 208 ITR 989 the operative part of the said judgement is reproduced as under: “Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides for deduction for payment of interest only if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. The business of the subsidiary company cannot be considered in law as the business of the assessee. The finding of the Tribunal b…

Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax

What is Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax

Manglayatan Projects P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. T Bhimjyani Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ACIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

ACIT 32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(4), Chennai vs. Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

Annavaram Kosuri -DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi, Mumbai

J.P Tobaco Producta Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - Sagar, Sagasr

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Sagar

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

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

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

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

DCIT, CC 4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai