Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT

219 ITR 563Supreme Court of India1996#7486 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 80msection 18withholding taxinterest on securitiessection 41section 260section 260amercantile system of accountingmiscellaneous applicationchilddisallowance under section 14arevenue expenditure

Judgments citing Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4105/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM ITA No. 3868/MUM/2013 A.Y.2006-07 [ by Assessee] & ITA No . 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] Vs. ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 [ By AO] & ITA no 4105/MUM/2014 [By Assessee] A.Y .2007-08 State Bank of India The Additional 3rd Floor, Commissioner of Income tax Corporate Centre Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Madam Cama Road Room No 545, Aykar Bhavan Nariman Point Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulkadir Jawad Wala Revenue by Shri P…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM A.Y.2006-07 [ by Assessee] & ITA No. 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 A.Y.2007-08 [ By AO] & [By Assessee] Vs. State Bank of India The Additional 3rd Floor, Commissionerof Income tax Corporate Centre Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Madam Cama Road Room No 545, Aykar Bhavan Nariman Point Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulkadir Jawad Wala Revenue by Shri P C Chhhotaray Special Counsel Shri Dr Kishor Dhule…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM ITA No. 3868/MUM/2013 [ by Assessee] & ITA No . 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] Vs. ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 [ By AO] & ITA no 4105/MUM/2014 [By Assessee] A.Y .2006-07 A.Y .2007-08 State Bank of India 3 r d Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 The Add it ional Commissionerof Income tax Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Room No 545 , Aykar Bhavan Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulka…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

ITA 3491/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay Kumar. CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…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 (Grasim Industries) and hence the payment as in the past be allowed as revenue expenditure. We woul…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 139(1)Section 80Section 80I

…tralised accounts are maintained, so long as interlacing, interconnectivity or interdependence of various units was not there, various activities have to be treated as separate and distinct, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Water Fall Estates Ltd. v. CIT, 219 ITR 563. in L.M. Chhabda & Sons v. CIT, 65 ITR 638, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that where an ITA Nos.347 & 348/Bang/2021 Page 10 of 11 assessee carried on business ventures at different places, there was no general principle that they should all be considered as part of single business. Thus, if an assessee had different units resulting in pos…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 139(1)Section 80Section 80I

…tralised accounts are maintained, so long as interlacing, interconnectivity or interdependence of various units was not there, various activities have to be treated as separate and distinct, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Water Fall Estates Ltd. v. CIT, 219 ITR 563. in L.M. Chhabda & Sons v. CIT, 65 ITR 638, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that where an ITA Nos.347 & 348/Bang/2021 Page 10 of 11 assessee carried on business ventures at different places, there was no general principle that they should all be considered as part of single business. Thus, if an assessee had different units resulting in pos…

KHAREL VIBHAG V. V. K.S. M. LIMITED,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 201/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

For Appellant: Shri Parmil Sinh Parmar - ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…t which was referable to the non-taxable income, being exempt under section 10(29) of the Act. The Apex Court after considering its decisions in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. (supra), Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra), Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 563 (SC) as well as the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (supra) laid down the following principles: (i)if income of an assessee is derived from various heads of income he is entitled to claim deduction permissible under the respective head whether or not computa…

KHAREL VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 200/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

For Appellant: Shri Parmil Sinh Parmar - ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…t which was referable to the non-taxable income, being exempt under section 10(29) of the Act. The Apex Court after considering its decisions in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. (supra), Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra), Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 563 (SC) as well as the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (supra) laid down the following principles: (i)if income of an assessee is derived from various heads of income he is entitled to claim deduction permissible under the respective head whether or not computa…

MAROLI BAZAAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 199/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

For Appellant: Shri Parmil Sinh Parmar - ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…t which was referable to the non-taxable income, being exempt under section 10(29) of the Act. The Apex Court after considering its decisions in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. (supra), Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra), Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 563 (SC) as well as the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (supra) laid down the following principles: (i)if income of an assessee is derived from various heads of income he is entitled to claim deduction permissible under the respective head whether or not computa…

M/S. MAROLI BAZAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 173/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

For Appellant: Shri Parmil Sinh Parmar - ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…t which was referable to the non-taxable income, being exempt under section 10(29) of the Act. The Apex Court after considering its decisions in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. (supra), Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra), Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 563 (SC) as well as the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (supra) laid down the following principles: (i)if income of an assessee is derived from various heads of income he is entitled to claim deduction permissible under the respective head whether or not computa…

DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI vs. GOLD STAR JEWELLRY P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 7348/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Dcit – 8(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Gold Star Jewellery Ltd., Unit Iii-A, Gold Star House, Black “C”, Plot 16P, 17,28 & 29, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400096 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3264B Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S. Gold Star Jewellery Vs. Dcit – 8(1), Mumbai Ltd., Unit Iii-A, Gold Star House, Black “C”, Plot 16P, 17,28 & 29, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400096 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3264B Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 234Section 263Section 80H

…the same character at different places it must be held as a matter of law that the ventures are parts of a single business. The Hon'ble High Court also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Waterfall Estates Limited. vs CIT(SC) (219 ITR 563) in which it was held that when the assessee carried on various activities, even though there may be centralized accounts maintained, so long as there is no inter- lacing, inter-connection and inter-dependence of the various units, the various activities carried on by the assessee had to be treated as separate and distinct activities. The Hon'ble…

DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1313/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1313/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 1314/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2011-12) DCIT-CC1(2) M/s. Purvankara Room No. 906 Projects Ltd. Pratishtha Bhavan 130/1, Ulsoor 10th Floor Road Old CGO Building Vs. Bangalore-560 042. Annexe, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACP2550R Assessee by Shri Rajeev Wagley Department by Ms. Bharti Singh Date of Hearing 27.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2016 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- Both the appeals pre…

ACIT, MADURAI vs. THE METAL POWDER COMPANY LTD., MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1143/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 80I

…accounts are maintained, so long as interlacing, interconnectivity or interdependence of various units was not there, various activities have to be treated as separate and distinct, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Water Fall Estates Ltd. v. CIT (219 ITR 563). Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L.M. Chhabda & Sons. v. CIT (65 ITR 638) has also held that where an assessee carried on business ventures at different places, there was no general principle that they should all be considered as part of single business. Thus, if an assessee had different units resulting in positive gross total income, in view…

CIT vs. MACHINO PLASTIC LTD

ITA/92/2011HC Delhi28 Feb 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 10(33)Section 14ASection 260ASection 54E

…he assessee derives income from various activities like business, earning of interest, capital Gains. In the case of ITA 92/2011 Page 6 of 11 waterfall Estate 219 ITR 563 the bifurcation of expenses attributable to earning the exempt income was upheld. Therefore, I am apportioning interest expenses between exempt income and other income as under. Therefore provisions of section 14A are applicable in the case of assessee. From the above discussion and in view of the fact that the assessee has not been able…

RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with costs

C.A. No.-004049-004049 - 1994Supreme Court23 Feb 2000
For Appellant: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Section 10(29)Section 256(1)Section 37Section 37(1)

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4 PETITIONER: RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/02/2000 BENCH: S.S.M.Quadri, D.P.Wadhwa JUDGMENT: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in Income-tax Reference No.86 of 1987 dated November 9, 1993. The assessee is the appellant. By the order under challenge the High Court answered the following question, referred to it under Section 25…