Veecumsees v. CIT

NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED (ON BEHALF OF MERGED ENTITY VADINAR OIL TERMINAL LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

…learned assessing officer that assessee should have earned interest on ICds of Essar oil Ltd and Essar Dredging limited. In earlier years, those intercorporate deposits were carrying on interest. He referred to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 220 ITR 185 wherein paragraph number seven in stating that interest year has been disallowed because of the financial position of the debtor Page 55 of 66 ITA No 778/MUM/2022 Nayara Energy Limited [ On behalfof VadinarOil Terminal Limited] V ACIT Central Circle -2 (1), Mumbai AY 2017-18 but the amount was borrowed for the purposes of the business. 68. The le…

TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

…n the books of accounts and appellants claim U/s. 36(1)(ili) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and relying on the various judicial pronouncements on the matter of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court particularly recent one in the case of Veecumsees vs. CIT [(1966) 220 ITR 185 (SC)], CIT Vs. Veermani Industries [216 ITR 607 (SC)I, Waterfall Estate Vs. CIT [219 ITR 563 (SC)] had held that the interest on borrowings for the purposes of business is allowable deduction U/s. 36(1) (ili) irrespective of its Capitalisation in the books and the similar ratio was also independently laid down in the case of Gwalior Rayons (Grasi…

SHREE BALAJI UMBER PROPERTIES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-13(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleshree Balaji Umber Properties Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 13(2)(2) Unit No. 201, A Wing Mumbai - 400020 Fulcrum Sahar Road Next To Hyaat Regency, Andheri (E) Mumbai -400099 Pan: Aaacu9207C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Ms. Akshita Bhandari Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

…he allowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act is not dependent on the existence of the business for which the loan was taken. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Veenadevi Singhania and Veecumsees v/s CIT — (1996) 220 ITR 185 (SC). It is not even the case of the AO that the business of the Assessee has been completely shut down. As such, in the humble submission of the Appellant, the disallowance made by the AO is contrary to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence not warranted.” 6 Shree Balaji Umber Properties Pvt. Ltd., 3. After considering the detail…

GREAT WHITE HARDWARE PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Great White Hardware Vs. ACIT Circle- 7(1)(1) R.No.124, 1st Floor Pvt. Ltd., 1301, 13th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Peninsula Business Park M.K.Road, Tower-B, Senapati Bapat Mumbai – 400 020 Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai – 400 013 PAN/GIR No.AAACP1995N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by Shri T.S. Khalsa Date of Hearing 19/07/2021 Date of Pronouncement 02/08/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.1094/Mum/…

DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARSHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI

In the result , the Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2004-05 is partly allowed and Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 is allowed

…of funds and resources. The activities were carried out as inseparable from the existing line of business. Therefore, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 77 ITR 739 and Veecumsees v. CIT 220 ITR 185 , these expenses need to be allowed as revenue in nature. The very same principle has been followed in the decision of the Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT by the Bombay Tribunal in 72 ITS 1. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the assessing authority to allow the sum of Rs. 1,60,04,350 as deduction on computing the taxabl…

MANOJ SHIVYAG SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmanmanoj Shivyag Singh Dcit Central Circle- 5(1) Babubhai Gaikwad Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Trikam Das Road, Kandivali Vs. (West), Mumbai-40067. Pan: Asjps4147D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.G. Ginde With Kumar Kala (Ar) Respondent By : Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.Dr)

…off the debt as bad in its books of account and the assessee need not establish the debt to have become bad. On further appeal by the revenue before High Court, the Hon’ble Court while referring the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Veecumsees v. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 185(SC)/ 86 Taxman 243 , held that the fact that a particular part of the business for which the loan had been obtained had been transferred or closed down, did not alter the fact that the loans, when obtained, had been for the purpose of the assessee’s business and dismissed the appeal of revenue. 11. Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee vehement…