Smt. Padmavati Jaykrishna v. CIT

101 ITR 153High Court1975#16460 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 57(iii)section 57 commercial expediency capital expenditure section 37(1)section 37 section 15 company section 14 india business interest

Judgments citing Smt. Padmavati Jaykrishna v. CIT

PETRONET MHB LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.G Vinay Simha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayana, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

…) of the 1922 Act which used the words "for the purpose of earning such.... profits" and the provisions of s. 57(iii) in which the expression "for the purpose of making or earning such income" is used. (See for example, Smt. Padmavati Jaykrishna v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 153 (Guj.). That this view is justified is amply borne out by the different approaches adopted in two decisions of the Supreme Court in relation to a claim for deduction in respect of the same item of expenditure. In T.S. Krishna v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 429 (SC), a claim for deduction in respect of wealth-tax paid on shares held by the assessee was hel…

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

…) of the 1922 Act which used the words "for the purpose of earning such.... profits" and the provisions of s. 57(iii) in which the expression "for the purpose of making or earning such income" is used. (See for example, Smt. Padmavati Jaykrishna v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 153 (Guj.). That this view is justified is amply borne out by the Page 27 of 67 different approaches adopted in two decisions of the Supreme Court in relation to a claim for deduction in respect of the same item of expenditure. In T.S. Krishna v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 429 (SC), a claim for deduction in respect of wealth-tax paid on shares held by the as…

DY.CIT CENTRAL CIR-6(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. CITRA PROPERTIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 100/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Citra Properties Ltd., M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Connaught Place, Room No.1925, Vs. New Delhi – 110001 19Th Floor, Pan: Aadcc 0776B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojiya, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 245D(4)Section 68

…down various principles, in various decided cases and made propositions about allowability of the expenditure. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: ". . . In view of the decision of the same High Court in Smt. PadmavatiJaikrishna v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 153, the interest on loan taken by the assessee to meet her personal expenses and tax liability was not deductible in computing the assessee's income under the head 'Other sources". On a comparison of the language of section 37(1) and section 57( Hi), it becomes clear that the scope of the former section is essentially wider than that of the latter.…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri M. Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 143(3)

…utting up the plant and purchasing the capital goods. Hence, the interest paid to the loan amount cannot have any direct connection with the deposit of the amount and with the interest earned. The case also referred to Smt. Padmavati Jaykrishna Vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 153 (Guj.) f) M/S Traco Cable Company Limited Vs. CIT [19691 [72 ITR 503](Ker.) : In this case, the court held that receipt of income by interest was only incidental or consequential on the deposit. It can hardly be contended, if an individual, who carries on any business other than a business of banking or dealing in money, deposits in' his surplus…

ANRAK ALUMINIUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms

ITA 994/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A