Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.57 seconds)
Pr. Cit -3 vs Dlf Ltd. (Fomerly Known As Dlf Universal ... on 6 March, 2025 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi Iv vs Dlf Universal Ltd. on 21 December, 2016

11. That only leaves us to deal with the question of reclassification of rental income which was earned with it being urged on behalf of the appellants that it was liable to be treated as income from business and profession. We note that the aforesaid question stands answered in favour of the assessee itself by this Court in light of the decisions rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV vs. DLF Ltd. (Earlier DLF universal Ltd.); Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - IV vs. DLF Universal Ltd.; Commissioner of Income Tax vs. DLF Universal Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax vs DLF Ltd.. We thus find no justification to take a contrary view.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 28 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 vs M/S. Lokhandwala Construction ... on 11 September, 2019

In the present case, the interest paid by the assesse is not for the purpose of acquisition of any capital asset but for its inventory. We do not find any restriction in provisions contained u/s 36(1)(iii) which provides that the interest can be disallowed if incurred for the purpose of inventory as provided under Accounting Standard 16. Apparently, in this case, there is no allegation that interest is not paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of the business. Hon‟ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. [131 taxman 810] has held as under :-
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai vs M/S Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd on 27 February, 2008

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2025 at 21:31:04 case where identical practice is being followed and accepted by the revenue. His next argument was that there is no doubt about the correctness of the profit of these two projects merely revenue wants to prepone taxability of these projects from subsequent years to earlier year and this is a revenue neutral exercise. For this, he relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Billahari Investment Private Limited (supra). The next submission of the ld. AR was that in case of special audit of the assesse for AY 2010-11, revenue itself has accepted the criteria of 30% of threshold completion for revenue recognition. He submitted that the special auditor has stated that those superficial yardstick of 30% of cost incurred has not been prescribed anywhere in the publication of the ICAI, however considering the spirit of the publication, it is accepted from every assesse to calculate the correct amount of revenue for recognition under the project completion method. However, assesse who is not in the business of construction is required to estimate reliably correct amount of revenue of the respective year. The auditor further went to state that the company has initially fixed the threshold limit of 30% effect from AY 2006-07 for recognizing revenue and its method has been consistently followed by the company every year thereafter. Thereafter, auditor stated that, according to him it is reasonable to adopt revenue under the Percentage of completion (POC) Method where the level of expenditure incurred is 30% or more of the estimated project cost. Hence, auditor was of the view that the assesse company has adopted the threshold limit of 30% going by the industry claims, prudence and followed the same consistency and, therefore, there is no postponement of tax. In nutshell, the ld. AR argued that it is an opinion of the expert on accounting practices for AY 2010-11 which has been accepted by the revenue that 30% threshold limit is as per the industry norms, provisions and consistency, same should not be disturbed in this year.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 179 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. on 18 November, 2019

46. Advancing argument against this ground, the Id. AR submitted that the CIT (A) should have considered the netting of principal as interest earned by the assesse is more than the interest expenditure incurred by the assesse. He submitted that in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, the CIT (A) has accepted this but for this year, he has not accepted the plea of the assesse. He drew attention to para no.9.6 where identical issue has been considered by the CIT (A). He argued that CIT (A) has accepted the concept of netting of and moreover after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no diversion of money for non-business purposes and loans to subsidiaries are at higher rates then rates of borrowings paid by the assesse. He further submitted that Accounting Standard 16 issued by ICAI does not have any application on the facts of the case. The next argument was that the case of the assesse is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the ease of CIT vs. Tulip Star Hotels Limited wherein if the interest expenditure is incurred for the purpose of busneiss the deduction should be allowed u1s 36(I)(iii) of the Act.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

The Dcit, Circle-5,, Ahmedabad vs M/S. Core Health Care Limited,, ... on 20 June, 2018

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2025 at 21:31:05 He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Health Care Limited - 298 ITR 194 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that provisions of section 36(1)(iii) has to be read on its own term and it is a code by itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that it does not make any difference whether the capital is borrowed for revenue purposes or for acquisition of capital assets, requirement of section is that the assesse must borrow capital for the purposes of its business. Therefore, he submitted that as in the case of assesse, the borrowing is for the purposes of business ofthe company, full deduction should have been allowed u1s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. He further stated that borrowing cost policy of the assesse is mentioned with respect to accounting of capitalization of the borrowing cost according to Accounting Standard 16 issued by ICAI which does not apply to inventor and even if it applies, the provision of law should prevail when there is conflict between accounting standard and the taxation laws while deciding issue under the Income Tax. Even otherwise, whole controversy is of academic nature as there is no dispute that all the borrowed funds have been used for the business and even if part of interest is capitalised by linking the same with recognition of revenue, the claim of interest so capitalised is to be allowed as deduction in the AY 2007-08 as the entire receipt was duly subjected to tax in the AY 2007-08. He further submitted that the finding of the CIT(A) in the year under reference being not in conformity with accounting and legal principles, the same has not been approved by the successor CIT(A) in the assesse's own case for A.Y. 2007-08. He submitted that in the past years identical claim of interest has always been allowed in the preceding years and there is no change in facts of the case and nature of claim. He also argued that whole controversy is of academic nature as there is no dispute that all the borrowed funds have been used for the business and even if part of interest is capitalised by linking the same with recognition of revenue, the claim of interest so capitalised is to be allowed as deduction in the AY 2007-08 as entire receipt was duly subjected to tax in the AY 2007-08Therefore, he submitted that the disallowance confirmed by CIT (A) of Rs.27.45 crores may be deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 22 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 Next