← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(1)5 judgments

DCIT,CC 4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. KUKREJA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5766/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh M. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)Section 68

noticed that the assessee had claimed interest of Rs.1.38 crores against secured loans for its Windmill projects. The provisions of Section 36(1)(1) alongwith explanation 8 to Section 43(1) does not appear to have been looked into. The Interest on borrowings used for capital expenditure

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

from interest bearing loans taken by the firm from third parties and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(1). < >  CIT v Hotel Savera [1999] 102 TAXMAN 247 (MAD.) Even after debiting the drawings and the loss in the business, the facts showed

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 538/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

from interest bearing loans taken by the firm from third parties and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(1). < >  CIT v Hotel Savera [1999] 102 TAXMAN 247 (MAD.) Even after debiting the drawings and the loss in the business, the facts showed

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 537/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

from interest bearing loans taken by the firm from third parties and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(1). < >  CIT v Hotel Savera [1999] 102 TAXMAN 247 (MAD.) Even after debiting the drawings and the loss in the business, the facts showed

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

from interest bearing loans taken by the firm from third parties and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(1). < >  CIT v Hotel Savera [1999] 102 TAXMAN 247 (MAD.) Even after debiting the drawings and the loss in the business, the facts showed