Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Lokhandwala Construction Inds. Ltd. on 15 January, 2003 cites

India Cements Ltd., Madras vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 8 December, 1965

In the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, Madras, reported in 60 ITR Page 52, it was held by the Supreme Court that in cases where the act of borrowing was incidental to 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 for which the loan was obtained. In the present case, the assessee was a builder. In the present case, the assessee had undertaken the Project of construction of flats under the Kandivali Project. Therefore, the loan was for obtaining stock-in-trade. That, the Kandivali Project constituted the stock-in-trade of the assessee. That, the Project did not constitute a fixed asset of the assessee. In this case, we are concerned with deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). Since the assessee had received loan for obtaining stock-in-trade (Kandivali Project), the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. That, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, the nature of the expense - whether the expense was on capital account or revenue account -was irrelevant as the Section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on the capital borrowed by the assessee was an item of deduction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 495 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Calico Dyeing And Printing Works vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 25 February, 1965

That, the utilization of the capital was irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating the claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act (See judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Calico Dyeing and Printing Works v. CIT, Bombay City-II, reported in 34 ITR 265). In that judgment, it has been laid down that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, all that the assessee had to show was that the capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in the relevant year of account and it did not matter whether the capital was borrowed in order to acquire a revenue asset or a capital asset. The said judgment of the Bombay High Court applies to the facts of this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 95 - Full Document
1