Section 10(2)(iii) — 11 judgments | BharatTax

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

during the accounting year by way of interest on loans borrowed by it and claimed allowance of this amount under section 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43 & 44/Chny/2025 (AYs 2021-22 & 2022-23) Jayapriya Company :: 48 :: fact as found by the Income-tax Officer ... business and if that finding is to stand then there is no reason why the interest should not be deducted under section 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The reason given by the Income-tax Officer for disallowing this amount was that the interest charged on the lending

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

during the accounting year by way of interest on loans borrowed by it and claimed allowance of this amount under section 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43 & 44/Chny/2025 (AYs 2021-22 & 2022-23) Jayapriya Company :: 48 :: fact as found by the Income-tax Officer ... business and if that finding is to stand then there is no reason why the interest should not be deducted under section 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The reason given by the Income-tax Officer for disallowing this amount was that the interest charged on the lending

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2011/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

incidental to carrying on of business,\nthe loan obtained was not an asset. That, for the purposes deciding the claim of\ndeduction under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 [section 36(1)(iii)\nof the present Income-tax Act), it was irrelevant consider the purpose

DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. PARANJAPE SCHEMES CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , VILE PARLE EAST , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 5501/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 68

carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset. That, for the purposes of deciding the claim of deduction under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act 1922 [section 36(1)(iii) of the present Income-tax Act], it was irrelevant to consider the purpose

PARANJAPE SCHEMES CONSTRUCTION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 5274/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 68

carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset. That, for the purposes of deciding the claim of deduction under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act 1922 [section 36(1)(iii) of the present Income-tax Act], it was irrelevant to consider the purpose

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHATTA TOWERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1137/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Mahatta Towers Pvt.Ltd., Circle-16(1), 614, Plot No.54, Mahatta Towers, New Delhi. B Block, Community Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Pan-Aaacm2109F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Koushlender Tiwari, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2024

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR

AMITABH DAS MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 965/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 57

under: The assessee company was carrying on the business on money lending. For the relevant assessment year the assessee claimed deduction under section 10(2)(iii) of 1922 Act in respect of the interest paid on its borrowed funds. The ITO found that the assessee had paid interest

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

ACIT -893) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIPLE SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2270/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43C

carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset. That, for the purposes of deciding the claim of deduction under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 [section 36(1)(iii) of the present Income-tax Act], it was irrelevant to consider the purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI II vs. MONNET INDUSTRIES LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA - 450 / 2008HC Delhi21 Nov 2008

For Respondent: Mr R.D. Jolly

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260A

that case that the borrowing was made “for the purposes of the business” to bring the case within the ambit of Section 10(2)(iii) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (which is equivalent to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 1961). If the said borrowing ... which the view taken by the High Court of Bombay and the Supreme Court in the above- referred cases rests is as under: Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act of 1922 allows deduction of interest on all borrowings which are made “for the purposes of business”. The expression “purposes

“Section 10(2)(iii)”