Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Tetron Commercial Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 January, 2003

Muthoot Agri Development & ... vs Dcit 15(2)(2), Mumbai on 29 July, 2019

In the case of Tetron Commercial Ltd. (supra), the assessee- company purchased some immovable properties, being land and flat, for undertaking of business of real estate. According to the 'Memorandum of Association', one of the main objects of the company was to carry on business in real estate. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) as interest on borrowed capital which was disallowed by the AO. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the basis that the business in real estate had not commenced and that it was the capital expense that was shown as advance against the immovable property. In appeal by the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court held that :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Acit, Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs Frontline Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai on 24 February, 2023

12. The ld. AR has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Tetron Commercial Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 133 Taxman 781 (Cal), wherein the said proposition was reiterated by the fact that the borrowed capital utilized for the purchase of business of the assessee, whether or not the same is in the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure, the interest payable for the said loan is to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jct Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 8 October, 2004

of this very Bench wherein it was held that whether the deduction under Section 36(l)(iii) is available or not is dependent on the question whether the capital borrowed is for the purpose of the business of the assessee. If it is found that the capital was borrowed for the purpose of business of the assessee, the interest payable thereon is admissible under the said Section. It is immaterial whether the same is in the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. If the expenditure is in the nature of business expenditure which relates to any stage of the business activity carried on by the assessee, whether isolated transaction or not, it is admissible for deduction under the said Section. A business commences with the activities undertaken even at the preparatory stage for setting up of the business Acquisition of immovable property for being used in the business by borrowed capital entitles the assessee to claim benefit of the Section on the interest paid, thereon, even if the asset acquired is not utilized for the purpose of business in the relevant previous year. In this decision, we had no occasion to deal with the question as to the payment of interest in respect of borrowed capital for acquisition of assets for including the same in the actual cost for the period until it is first put to use, The question relevant for Expln. 8 to Section 43(1) was not under consideration in the said case. That apart, the question with which we are now concerned is limited to the borrowed capital for acquiring an asset in the form of a machinery under the Deferred Payment Scheme until the asset is first put to use. Therefore, the said decision would not be relevant for our present purpose, since the capital was held therein to have been borrowed for the purpose of business, not for the purpose of including the same in actual cost for acquiring any asset for commencing a business and the interest payable on such borrowed capital for the period until the asset was first put to use. Such question not being involved in the said case, this case does not help Dr. Pal in his contention.
Calcutta High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - D K Seth - Full Document
1   2 Next