Sitananda v. CIT

251 ITR 575High Court2001#23989 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 48Section 71(2)

Judgments citing Sitananda v. CIT

Incline Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

ITA 112/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…ty Commissioner of Income Tax: "80...no other cost, like interest expenditure incurred on loan taken for purchase of 'right shares' could be allowed as deduction as cost of acquisition, while computing the capital gain on transfer of such shares.". 4. [2001] 251 ITR 575 (Delhi HC), Smt. Sita Nanda vs Commissioner of Income Tax: "The interest, as was noted by the Tribunal, had to be paid by the assessee as she made the payment of unearned increase belatedly. The crucial words in the provision are in connection with such transfer. The expression means intrinsically linked with the transfer. Such expenditure has to…

M/S. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…ount of closure of business and the arrears of wage / bonus was related to the business of the assesse and has nothing to do with the sale of business assets. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sitananda vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 575, wherein it was held that the assesse has to pay the interest to the lessor for the delayed payment of lease amount. It was held that it was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer. In the case of the assessee also there were interest payments to the workers and this expenditure cannot be said to be…

Sivanandha Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…ount of closure of business and the arrears of wage / bonus was related to the business of the assesse and has nothing to do with the sale of business assets. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sitananda vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 575, wherein it was held that the assesse has to pay the interest to the lessor for the delayed payment of lease amount. It was held that it was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer. In the case of the assessee also there were interest payments to the workers and this expenditure cannot be said to be…

Sitananda v. CIT (251 ITR 575) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax