Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › DCIT vs. Core Health Care (Supreme Court)

DCIT vs. Core Health Care (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 12, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

(i) Interest paid in respect of borrowings on capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year are deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act;

(ii) Interest on all moneys borrowed for the purposes of business are deductible irrespective of whether the moneys are used for a revenue purpose or a capital purpose;

(iii) Explanation 8 to s. 43(1) has no application to s. 36(1)(iii);

(iv) The proviso to s. 36(1)(iii) operates prospectively;

(v) Challapalli Sugars 98 ITR 167 (SC) applies to a case where the business had not yet commenced.

Note: The judgement of the Full Bench in CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H High Court) is impliedly overruled.

Related Posts:

  • ACCT vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Supreme Court) A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that what this Court cannot do in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it is unfathomable as to how the High Court can take a different approach in the matter in reference to Article 226…
  • Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Based on perusal of the report of the DIT, Investigation Wing, New Delhi, the Assessing officer has formed not merely a prima facie belief but has reached a conclusion that the assessee has routed back his undisclosed income in the form of share capital. For reaching such a decisive finding…
  • Carestream Health Inc vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The ld DR vehemently argued that the percentage of shareholding remains the same because reduction of shares had happened for all shareholders. We find that the ld DR relied on para 24 of the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in 133 ITD 1 supra to support his proposition.…
  • DCIT vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd (Supreme Court) Judged by both these parameters, there can be no doubt that the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2008, would be both arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, liable to be struck down as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.…
  • New Delhi Television Ltd vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts necessary for assessment of its case to the assessing officer. What the revenue urges is that the assessee did not make a full and true disclosure of certain other facts. We are of the view that the assessee had disclosed…
  • Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) Taking a cue from Varghese case, we therefore, hold that Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked where it is found on facts that the lesser amount stated in the return filed by the assessee is a result of an attempt to evade tax lawfully payable by the assessee. The burden…

Related Judgements

  1. Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court) 

    (i) A stock option which is subject to a ‘lock-in’ is not a chargeable perquisite u/s 17(2) on the date of grant, vesting or exercise. The benfit is purely notional. (ii) s. 17(2)(iiia) inserted w.e.f 1.4.2000 is not clarificatory; (iii) … Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court) Read More »
  2. CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta (Supreme Court) 

    S. 158BB has to be read with the relevant Finance Act and the surcharge prescribed therein is applicable to a block assessment. The Proviso to s. 113 of the Act, though inserted by the Finance Act 2002 with effect from … CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta (Supreme…
  3. M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had led satisfactory evidence that its business was that of a commission agent and not a trader and 10-11 years had passed, the assessee could not be held responsible for non-appearance of five traders to whom summons … M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme…
  4. K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.) (Supreme Court) 

    Cash in bank is conceptually different from cash in hand. It is not permissible for the Revenue to withdraw money from the attached bank accounts. However, as the order u/s 132B was not challenged, no relief given. Directions given for … K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.)…
  5. Mangat Ram vs. State (Supreme Court) 

    The Supreme Court deprectaes the practice of the High Court in disposing of matters without recording reasons. Explains that while the Supreme Court itself, being the final court, may pass orders without reasons, the High Courts and lower courts are … Mangat Ram vs. State (Supreme Court)…