← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)1,547 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(iii) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
347 ITR 272 · 2012 · High Court
516
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the assessee's accounts before making any disallowance.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
508
citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
410 ITR 466 · 2019 · Supreme Court
501
citing judgments

When mixed funds are available, interest-free advances are presumed to be made from the assessee's own interest-free funds, preventing disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii). This principle also applies to section 14A disallowance, where interest expenditure is not disallowed if surplus funds are available and no direct nexus is established with borrowed funds for investments earning exempt income.

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
408
citing judgments

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(iii)

Arch Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7009/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Contention Of The Learned Dcit That The Appellant Has Not Carried On Any Business Activity During The Year & Hence No Expenses Are Allowable.

For Appellant: Ajay SinghFor Respondent: S.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

ITA No.7009/Mum/2016 A.Y.2012-13 1 M/s Arch Impex Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, CC-5(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skm Fabrics ( Amana ) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7020/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh JoijodeFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

advances / loans” for unknown purpose.” 3. The only issue arising in present appeal is with regard to deletion of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the records are: The assessee ... Accordingly, assessee was asked to show cause as to why the interest expenses claimed should not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as interest free loans and advances were given out of interest-bearing funds. In reply, assessee submitted that the interest

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5022/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

that for the purpose of disallowance under section 36(l)(iii) weighted average cost of borrowing is to be considered. Section 36(1)(iii) is a code in itself: 1.3 As stated in the statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal, Appellant claimed deduction of the said interest expense ... relied on the fallowing judicial decisions as under:- (1) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT (2015) 63 taxmann.com 308 (SC) the proposition that – “Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital (Interest free loans) - Assessment year 1988-89 - Whether once it is established that

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5021/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

that for the purpose of disallowance under section 36(l)(iii) weighted average cost of borrowing is to be considered. Section 36(1)(iii) is a code in itself: 1.3 As stated in the statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal, Appellant claimed deduction of the said interest expense ... relied on the fallowing judicial decisions as under:- (1) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT (2015) 63 taxmann.com 308 (SC) the proposition that – “Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital (Interest free loans) - Assessment year 1988-89 - Whether once it is established that

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the interest on hedge swaps was an allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act 12. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the aviation fuel facility of the Assessee was completed ... hence interest on swap paid after the asset was put to use was to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the tax auditor of the Assessee had certified that there

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the interest on hedge swaps was an allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act 12. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the aviation fuel facility of the Assessee was completed ... hence interest on swap paid after the asset was put to use was to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the tax auditor of the Assessee had certified that there

Flex Art Foil Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC--4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5847/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 69C

1 ITA Nos. 5846 & 5847/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Flex Art Foil Ltd. Vs.DCIT,CC-4(2) IN

Flex Art Foil Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5846/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 69C

1 ITA Nos. 5846 & 5847/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Flex Art Foil Ltd. Vs.DCIT,CC-4(2) IN

Lodha Developers Ltd(Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2349/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blemacrotech Developers Limited V. Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. Macrotech Developers Limited Room No. 655, 6Th Floor {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 37(1)

jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lokhandwala Construction India Ltd. 260 ITR 579 the same were rendered before the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) has been inserted vide Finance Act 2003?” “3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the | case ... carefully considered. According to the learned counsel the interest claimed by the assessee is a period cost and has to be allowed under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act. The assessee has relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of the Taparia tools

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the interest on hedge swaps was an allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act 12. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the aviation fuel facility of the Assessee was completed ... hence interest on swap paid after the asset was put to use was to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the tax auditor of the Assessee had certified that there

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

issue by holding that the test of presumption as held by this Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) while considering Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act would apply while considering the application of Section 14A of the Act. The aforesaid decision of this Court in HDFC Bank

M/S. Jenmata Traders P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1045/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Jenmata Traders P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-7(2), 59, Vikas Nagar, Mumbai Kalwad Road, Jhotwara, Jaiput, Vs. Rajasthan-302 021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM M/s

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

For Appellant: Mr.Rahul Hakani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.DR
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

that the rental income is to be taxed under ‘income from house property’ and not ‘income from business’ and hence, the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act towards disallowance of interest does not arise as the same was disallowed by the ld. AO only

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Cowtown Land Development Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4053/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 36(1)(iii)

been carefullyconsidered. According to the learned counsel the interest claimed by the assessee is a period cost and has to be allowed under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act. The assessee has relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of the Taparia tools ... wherein the Supreme Court held that the only aspect which needed examination was as to whether the provisions of section 36 (1) (iii) read with section 43 (2) of the act was satisfied or not. Once these are satisfied there is no question of denying the benefit of deduction

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1579/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR
Section 1Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 801CSection 80ISection 921

holding that the interest expenditure on borrowings utilized for the purpose of the business activities of the Appellant was not allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and in disallowing interest expenditure under Section 14A of the Act aggregating to Rs.1,93,000/- in accordance with the provisions

M/S Parthiv Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4505/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Parthiv Enterprises, Ito-17(2)(5), 83 Ramesh Bhuvan Nakhoda Room No.123-A, 1St Floor, Street, Vs. Pydhonie, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 003 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaefp8201A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amar Jit Singh: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Interest Free Loans Of Rs.3,35,23,178/- Out Of Rs.12,19,54,637/- & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same As Loans Taken For Non-Business Purposes. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing & Adding The Proportionate Interest Paid Of Rs.22,24,357/- Out Of The Total Interest Paid Of Rs.80,92,036/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Added The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non Business Purpose. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of The Genuine Loan Received From The Mis K.C. Kapadia & Sons(P) Ltd Of Rs.39,34,639/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non-Business Purpose.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

issues are in connection with the disallowance of interest of Rs.22,24,357/- out of total interest of Rs.80,92,036/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act treating the same for non-business purpose. Before going further, we deem it necessary to advert the finding

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Wanbury Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Sector 30A, Income Tax, Bsel Tech Park B Wing Circle 15(3)(1), Vs. Opp Vashi Rly Station R.No. 451 Aayakar Bhavan Vashi, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400075 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp5939P

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 154Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Income Tax (Appeals)-24, [the learned CIT (A)], Mumbai dated 07.02.2019 for AY 2015-16 raising following grounds of appeal. “1. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing interest expense under ... section 36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,39,97,017 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has incurred interest expense for the purpose of business and accordingly, the same ought Wanbury Ltd; AY 15-16 to be allowed as deduction while computing income from business

The Tata Power Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2710/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

option to call is not c. available to holders of the bonds and therefore, interest payable/paid on these bonds are not allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Haryana High Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corpn

Panch Tatva Reality, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 679/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & S.Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 30Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT

Suman P Khurana, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed accordingly

ITA 2415/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suman P. Khurana बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-3(2) Room No.402, 4Th Floor, 501, Raheja Centre, Free Press Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mumbai-400021. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.S स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk0190Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekhar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Annual Value Of The Property At Maker Chambers Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai At Rs.82,86,301/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee. A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Value Of The Property At Gujranwala Town, Delhi At Rs.6,60,000/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

Ramachandran [2011] 10 taxmann.com 109/199 Taxman 122/339 ITR 296 for the principle that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on borrowed funds utilized for the acquisition of shares, when the shares held as stock-in-trade which arise