Sudhir Dattaram, Patil v. DCIT

2 SOT 678Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#10565 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Sudhir Dattaram, Patil v. DCIT

ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANJEEV AGRAWAL, BHOPAL

ITA 87/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…dicating ground no. 12 of assessee, submitted that in para 4.8 the Ld. CIT(A) has considered entire facts and circumstances of the issue and thereafter deleted the addition by following the orders of the ITAT Mumbai in the case Sudhir Dattaram Patil vs. DCIT 2 SOT 678 (ITAT Mum) and AH Baldota vs.ACIT (2016) 103 TTJ 517. Therefore, first appellate order is quite correct and sustainable, hence, the same may kindly be upheld. 29. On careful consideration of rival submission first of all we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with following observations and findings:- 4.8.2 I have consider…

SHRI HIREN RAMESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(7), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1880/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1880/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, I.T.O., Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Ward-3(2)(7), Chartered Accountants, Ahmedabad. 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram, Railway Station, Off. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Abypp8084C

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R

…ntical facts and circumstances, allowed the expenses in the hands of the partner. The relevant finding of the order reads as under: 5. After hearing rival submissions, we find that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sudhir D. Patil vs. DCIT reported in 2 SOT 678, J-Bench, Mumbai had considered the question of allowing expenditure, while computing income from a partner, against salary received by the partner from the firm. The Tribunal had taken the view that the salary from the firm in which the assessee is a partner, is in the nature of business income u/s 28(v) and, therefore, interest paid by the partne…

SHRI ASHWINBHAI LALJIBHAI VARADIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3267/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3267/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ashwinbhai Laljibhai Varadia, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D-1, Gangeshwar Society, Varachha Ward-9(1), Surat. Road, Hirabaug, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Abxpv 0026 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 57Section 70

…e index between borrowing and investment, the assessee entitled to claim of interest of Rs.3,76,047/- (Rs.4,40,484 – 64,437) from the interest received from the firm, in the light of decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sudhir Dattaram Patil v. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 678 (Mumbai). 6. Per contra, the ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. We find from the computation of total income filed by the assessee that the interest has been claimed as set-off against the interest from other parties of Rs.4,40,484/-…

DHARMA TEJA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1593/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 201(1)Section 4Section 40

…expenditure which is to be allowed against the same u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Act. In support of his claim, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Sudheer Dattaram Patil Vs. DCIT, reported in [2005] 2 SOT 678 Mumbai. 10. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the interest on borrowed capital can be set off against the income from partnership firm u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Act as held by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of…

DHARMA TEJA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1592/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 201(1)Section 4Section 40

…expenditure which is to be allowed against the same u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Act. In support of his claim, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Sudheer Dattaram Patil Vs. DCIT, reported in [2005] 2 SOT 678 Mumbai. 10. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the interest on borrowed capital can be set off against the income from partnership firm u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Act as held by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of…

SYNTHOLAB CHEMICALS & RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4156/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4156/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Syntholab Chemicals & Research Acit, -18(3) Office No.13 & 20, Ground Floor, Earnest House, Nariman Point Bhangwadi Shopping Arcade, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Kalbadevi Road,Mumbai- 400 002. Pan:Aaacp 2682 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr Assessee By: Shri B.V. Jhaveri-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:19.04.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 11/05/2015,Of Cit (A)-29,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Bulk Drugs & Intermediates, Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/09/2012,Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 1.58 Crore.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)Of The Act,On30/01/2015,Determining Its Income At Rs.2,00,12,590/-.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us,Grounds 2,4,5,6 & 8 Were Not Pressed. Hence, Same Stands Dismissed,As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri-ARFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 28

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ ई” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4156/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s.…

UDHAVDAS MOHANDAS RUPCHANDANI,ULHASNAGAR vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 1012/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28

…capital for the purpose of investment in firms is allowable against remuneration received by the partner from the firms, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sudhir Dattaram, Patil vs. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 678 (Mum). 4.3 The learned CIT(A), was of the view that when funds were borrowed and invested in firms as capital/loan, it was only related to the interest paid on such borrowed funds and interest earned from the firms dehors the share in the profits of a firm; i.e. interest paid had a direct relation with interest income and was not related to the as…

UDHAVDAS MOHANDAS RUPCHANDANI,ULHASNAGAR vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 1011/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28

…capital for the purpose of investment in firms is allowable against remuneration received by the partner from the firms, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sudhir Dattaram, Patil vs. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 678 (Mum). 4.3 The learned CIT(A), was of the view that when funds were borrowed and invested in firms as capital/loan, it was only related to the interest paid on such borrowed funds and interest earned from the firms dehors the share in the profits of a firm; i.e. interest paid had a direct relation with interest income and was not related to the as…

UDHAVDAS MOHANDAS RUPCHANDANI,ULHASNAGAR vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 1010/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28

…capital for the purpose of investment in firms is allowable against remuneration received by the partner from the firms, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sudhir Dattaram, Patil vs. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 678 (Mum). 4.3 The learned CIT(A), was of the view that when funds were borrowed and invested in firms as capital/loan, it was only related to the interest paid on such borrowed funds and interest earned from the firms dehors the share in the profits of a firm; i.e. interest paid had a direct relation with interest income and was not related to the as…

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. RAJMUNDRA REAL ESTATE P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1946/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.K.Billaiya & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1946/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dcit 10(1) M/S. Rajmundra Real Estate बनाम/ 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg, 1858-34, Khernagar, Mumbai - 400020 Near P.F.Office, Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd1807B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Shri JitendraFor Respondent: Shri Anilkumar Dhondial
Section 14A

…ench of the Mumbai Tribunal vide order dated 26th February, 2007 in the case of Shri Sudhir Kpadi us. ITO in ITA No. 7888/ M/ 03 and the Tribunal dealt with the issue in the following manner: ITAT Mumbai Bench "J" in the case of Sudhir Dettarasm Path vs. DCIT 2 SOT 678 (Mum) has considered the question of taxing the expenditure while computing Income of a partner against salary received by the partner from the firm. The Tribunal held that the salary from the firm in which the assessee is a partner is in the nature of business income u/s.28(v) and therefore, interest paid by the partner on money borrowed for contr…