Smt. Padmavathi Jaikrishna v. Addl. CIT

166 ITR 176Supreme Court of India1987#8248 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 139 Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 1962 Section 2(24)(x)

Issues it is cited on

section 142(2)section 57(iii)revision u/s 263 transfer of capital asset section 57 section 54f malabar industrial section 54 section 30 section 56 capital expenditure principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing Smt. Padmavathi Jaikrishna v. Addl. CIT

BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN SUGAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 814/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafiqui (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 7Q

…interest payable for default in payment of such income tax could not be allowed as a deduction. In arriving at the conclusion, the court followed its own decision in the cases of East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd, 224 ITR 627 and Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna, 166 ITR 176, where decision dealt with the issue of deductibility of interest paid on moneys borrowed for payment of income tax. 5.1 The ld.CIT(A) observed that in this case, the interest paid on delayed Provident Fund payments had to take its nature from the P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2023-24 Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Limited principal in terms of provisions of Sectio…

NITIN MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 55/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Shubham JainFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 57

…lity, interest payment on overdrafts was held to be not allowable deduction under section 57(iii) of the Act (H. H. Maharaja Martand Singh Ju Deo Vs. CIT (1989) Taxation 92(3)-199, 174 ITR 515 (MP): Padmavati Jai Krishna Vs. Addl. CIT (1987) Taxation 86(2)-1: 166 ITR 176 (SC)). 5.15 In the case of the appellant, I find that the appellant has not been able to establish the commercial expediency of the transaction entered into by the appellant. The appellant has admitted that as the statutes did not allow KJAPL to borrow from open market, the appellant had no other choice but to take loan in his personal capacity t…

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 575/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 57

…lity, interest payment on overdrafts was held to be not allowable deduction under section 57(iii) of the Act (H. H. Maharaja Martand Singh Ju Deo Vs. CIT (1989) Taxation 92(3)-199, 174 ITR 515 (MP): Padmavati Jai Krishna Vs. Addl. CIT (1987) Taxation 86(2)-1: 166 ITR 176 (SC)). Connection between the expenditure and earning of income need not be direct and it may be indirect. But, since the expenditure must have been incurred for the purpose of earning that income, there should be some nexus between the 12 RAJ KUMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR expenditure and the earning of the income [Addl. CIT vs. Madras F…

DCIT vs. M/S FIZA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTER PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, all the miscellaneous petitions are allowed

ITA 985/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 263Section 54FSection 57

…dismissed. But, before doing that, I deem it MP Nos. 18 to 20/Bang/2022 Page 11 of 13 proper to suggest to the Government to examine the feasibility of granting relief by amending the Act.” 33. Further in the case of Smt. Padmavathi Jaikrishna v. Addl. CIT, 166 ITR 176 (SC), it was held as follows:- “7. In CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC), this Court observed : "The determination of the question before us turns on the true interpretation of section 57(iii) and it would, therefore, be convenient to refer to that section, but before we do so, we may point out that section 57(iii) occurs in a f…

ARJUN M RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 692/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 263Section 54FSection 57

…r proper nor adequate, it can be said that the order passed by the Assessing Officer nowhere reflects about any enquiry said to be made. It simply refers the explanation given by the assessee and nothing beyond that. - Smt. Padmavathi Jaikrishna v. Addl. CIT, 166 ITR 176 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that In order that the claim for the deduction could be sustained, it was for the assessee to satisfy the ITO that the loan interest in respect of which was claimed as deduction was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for earning the income from out of which the deduction was claimed. In the instant cas…

GURU PAVAN RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

ITA 677/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 263Section 54FSection 57

…proper nor adequate, it can be said that the order passed by the Assessing Officer nowhere reflects about any enquiry said to be made. It simply refers the explanation given by the assessee and nothing beyond that. - Smt. Padmavathi Jaikrishna v. Addl. CIT, 166 ITR 176 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that In order that the claim for the deduction could be sustained, it was for the assessee to satisfy the ITO that the loan interest in respect of which was claimed as deduction was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for earning the income from out of which the deduction was claimed. In the instant cas…

ANIRUDH MURTHY RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

ITA 676/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 263Section 54FSection 57

SH. RAVINANDAN KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 21/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 57

…ility, interest payment on overdrafts was held to be not allowable deduction under section 57(iii) of the Act(H. H. Maharaja Martand Singh Ju Deo Vs. CIT (1989) Taxation 92(3}-199, 174 ITR 515 (MP): Padmavati Jai Krishna Vs. Addl. CIT (1987) Taxation 86(2)-1: 166 ITR 176 (SC)). Connection between the expenditure and earning of income need not be direct and it may be indirect. But, since the expenditure must have been incurred for the purpose of earning that income, there should be some nexus between the expenditure and the earning of the income [Addl. CIT vs. Madras Fertilisers Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 139 (Mad.) : Vi…

IMPERIAL CONSULTANTS & SECURITIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS OMPERIAL CONSULTANTS & SECURITIES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT -6 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3529/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Imperial Consultants & Dcit, Circle - 6(3)(1) Securities Ltd. Room No. 506, 5Th Floor (Formerly Imperial Consultants & Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Securities P. Ltd) Vs. Mumbai 400020 Manickam Complex, Gr. Floor 1/3, General Paters Roadchennai 600002 Pan – Aaacg4413G Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle - 6(3)(1) M/S. Imperial Consultants & Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Securities Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Essar House, 11, Kk Marg Mumbai 400020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034 Pan – Aaacg4413G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56Section 57

…(1994) 121 CTR (Guj) 470 : (1995) 211 ITR 511 (Guj) and India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) relied on; Ms. Ila R. Ambani (ITA Nos. 4340 & 9341/Bom/90, dt. 30th Sept., 2004) and Srnt. Padmavati Jaiknshna vs. Addl CIT (1987) 62 CTR (SC) 14 : (1987) 166 ITR 176 (SC) distinguished; Mandideep Engineering & Packaging Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 71 TTJ (Ind) 954 : (2001)77 ITD 307 (Ind) not followed.” 13. We also find merit in the contentions of the assessee that interest expenditure corresponding to interest income other than interest received from Essar Oil Ltd. is to be allowed. We note that t…

PLUTO SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5872/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Pluto Securities Private Ltd. Dcit Circle- 10(3)(2) L-1/110, The Summit, Near Room No. 509, Sawan Club, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacp8330R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram Sr Advocate with Shri Rahul Kakkani AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

…case law relied by ld. CIT(A) in Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com ITA No. 5368 Mum 2018-Bharat S. Kanungo. 167 (Bom. HC), CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan [2001] 248 ITR 449 (SC), Smt. Padmavati Jai Krishna v. Addl. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 176 (SC), Poona Club Ltd. [2018] 90 taxman.com 422 (Pune Trib.) are not applicable on the facts of the present case. 6. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Tribunal in Triumph International Finance India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2016] 161 ITD 464 (Mum. Trib.), and CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR…

SH. DHARAM PAL AGGARWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 91/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 57

…r own funds for the purpose of claim under section 57 of the Act. Accordingly the disallowance of Rs. 15,44,043 made by the A.O. under section 57 of the Act was upheld. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Smt. Padmawati Jaikrishna Vs. Addl. CIT 166 ITR 176 (SC) • Mrs. Arundhati Balkrishna Vs. CIT, Ahmedabad. 177 ITR 275 (SC) • Vijay Laxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 191 ITR 647 (SC) • Karnataka Forest Plantations Corpn. Ltd. 156 ITR 275 (Karnataka HC) • CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) • Smt. Virmati Ramakrishan Vs. CIT 131ITR 659 (Guj. HC) 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. L…

LALA BANSI DHAR & SONS,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1640/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘D’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lala Bansi Dhar & Sons, Diamond vs. ACIT, Circle 38(1), Press Building, 8E, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi PAN – AAAHL 0339P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pradeep Dinodia & Sh. R.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement 04.09.2018 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-20, New…

PARIKSHIT MANDIR SIAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT)- 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri, G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 377/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri. Parikshit Mandir Sial Ito (I.T)-4(2)(2), Mumbai 501, Sea Goddess Green Field Air India Building., Nariman बिधम/ Estate, A.B Nair Road, Opp. Juhu Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Post Office, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 057. स्थामीरेखासं./जीआइआयसं ./ Pan/Gir No. Avjps5311E (अऩीराथी/Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri.Reepal Tralashawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 57

…ri. Parikshit Mandir Sial Vs. ITO (I.T)-4(2)(2), Mumbai 4 in order to fortify his aforesaid contention relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i). CIT Vs. V.P Gopinathan (2001) 248 ITR 449 (SC) (ii). Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna Bs. Addl. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 176 (SC) (iii). CIT Vs. Amritaben R. Shah (1999) 238 ITR 777 (Bom) (iv). Saluja Farms Vs. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 172 (Del) The ld. D.R taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that the Hon‟ble Courts in the aforementioned cases involving identical facts, had concluded that the interest expenditure incurred on loans (against…