Category: Sec. 36(1)(iii)

Delhi H.C : The Assessee had paid compensation amount “once and for all to repurchase the property” and this was “in fact a sale consideration and cannot be allowed as business expenditure.”

High Court Of Delhi Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. & ORS. vs. CIT & Ors. Section 24, 36(1)(iii), 154, 194-I Asst. Year 1995-96 S. Muralidhar & Sanjeev Narula, JJ. ITA 210/2003, 609/2005, 611/2005, 772/2005, 1134/2005, 400/2009, 742/2009, 55/2010, 548/2010, 581/2010, 2078/2010 20th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Arta Trana Panda …

Delhi H.C : Interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of business is to be allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income

High Court Of Delhi Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Reebok India Company Section 260A, 36(1)(iii) Sanjiv Khanna & Chander Shekhar, JJ. Income Tax Appeal 1130/2017 25th September, 2018 Counsel appeared: Ashok K. Manchanda, Sr. SC with Mr. Amar and Aditya Khamparia for the Assessee.: Neeraj Jain and Aniket D. Agarwal for the Revenue SANJIV KHANNA, …

Gujarat H.C : Interest on Special Purpose Notes was required to be disallowed when the said interest was in respect of the capital borrowed for the purposes of the business of the appellant

High Court Of Gujarat Nirma Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 36(1)(iii), 28 Asst. Year 1999-2000 Akil Kureshi & Biren Vaishnav, JJ. Tax Appeal No. 1219 of 2006 10th October, 2017 Counsel Appeared: SN Soparkar, Senior Counsel With Bandish S Soparkar, Swati Soparkar, Advocate for the Appellant(s).: Mihir Thakore, Senior Counsel With Manish Bhatt …

Bombay H.C : Where no interest bearing fund was advanced to subsidiary company on account of share application money, no part of interest expenditure was to be disallowed

High Court Of Bombay CIT-8, Mumbai vs.Golden Tobacco Ltd. Section 36(1)(iii) Assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 S.C. Dharmadhikari And Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, JJ. IT Appeal No. 1222 Of 2014 April  21, 2017 ORDER 1. The Revenue’s appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and …

Gujarat H.C : Petitioner had filed the return of income on 31.10.2001 declaring total income of Rs. 7.23 crores (rounded off). This return was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer who framed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.3.2004 accepting the declaration of income made by the petitioner in the return

High Court Of Gujarat N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. ITO (OSD) Section 80-IB, 36(1)(iii) And 147 Assessment Year 2001-02 Akil Kureshi And A.J. Shastri, JJ. Special Civil Application No. 24746 Of 2006 September 20, 2016 JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. – The petitioner challenges the notice dated 16.1.2006 issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer reopening the petitioner’s assessment for …

Gujarat H.C : Where during assessment, Assessing Officer had examined entire claim of interest expenditure incurred in respect of Deep Discount Bonds and concluded said claim as not valid, he could reopen assessment taking ground that expenditure was disallowable for non-deduction of tax at source

High Court Of Gujarat Nirma Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle-5 Section  : 40(a)(ia), 36(1)(iii), 194A and 147 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Akil Kureshi And A.J. Shastri, JJ. Special Civil Application No.16613 Of 2010 August  30, 2016 JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. – The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 30.3.2010 issued by the respondent – Assessing Officer to reopen …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Assessee was having interest free capital before any interest free advance was made and that there is nothing on record by any of the authorities below that the assessee had used the interest bearing funds for other than business purposes, whereas the assessee had submitted that loan raised by the assessee has been used for the purpose of business, ignoring the specific finding of the AO that the claims of the assessee that interest bearing funds were not diverted as interest free loan and that advances were given during the course of business, were factually incorrect

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana CIT vs. Smt. Satish Bala Malhotra Section : 36(1)(III) Assessment Year : 2006-07 S.J. Vazifdar, CJ. And Deepak Sibal, J. IT Appeal No. 232 Of 2012 (O&M) August 11, 2016 JUDGMENT S.J. Vazifdar, CJ. – This is an appeal against the order of the Tribunal pertaining to the assessment year …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has grossly erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer and order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh with regard to the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.28,70,608/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act which is the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant but neither allowed as a deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) as business expenditure nor treated as capital expenditure

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Thukral Regal Shoes vs. CIT, Chandigarh Section 36(1)(iii) Assessment year 2009-10 S.J. Vazifdar, ACTG. CJ. and Deepak Sibal, j. IT Appeal No. 153 of 2016 (O & M) July 21, 2016 JUDGMENT S.J. Vazifdar, ACTG. CJ. – This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal …

Karnataka H.C : The assessee is entitled for deduction under section 10B of the Act by following its earlier order passed in the case of the assessee even when the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions set out in the said provision and the orders relied upon by the Tribunal has not reached finality

High Court Of Karnataka CIT, Bangalore vs. Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Section 14A, 36(1)(iii) Assessment Year 2007-08 Jayant Patel And B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 228 & 229 Of 2015 April 5, 2016 JUDGMENT Jayant Patel, J. – The appellant-Revenue has preferred the present appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether, on …
Malcare WordPress Security