M/S NAHAR POLY FILM LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/9/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095805201107 April 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mis. Nahar Poly Films Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against an order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'A'. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2006-07. The assessee had raised a term loan of Rs. 30,61,00,000/- from Canara Bank and Rs. 7,98,00,000/- from Punjab National Bank for acquiring assets for its existing business and claimed the interest paid thereon as a revenue expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed this interest, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and subsequently by the ITAT. The total income computed by the Assessing Officer was Rs. 34,07,33,922/-, an increase from the assessee's declared income.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal. The Court found no substance in the assessee's arguments regarding the distinction between 'expansion' and 'extension'. It noted that the dictionary meanings of 'extension' (process of extending, added part making original larger or longer) and 'expansion' (act or state of expanding) do not present a significant distinction. Even if a distinction existed, 'expansion' would be a wider term encompassing 'extension'. The Tribunal had factually found that increasing spindle capacity constituted an extension of the existing business, as the scope of production was enlarged. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's observation that the increase in spindle capacity from 153664 to 201664 spindles by installing new machinery was an enlargement or extension of the existing capacity. The Court also referred to the Tribunal's reliance on the Modi Industries case, distinguishing it by stating that in the present case, while the business line was the same, the scope of production was enlarged, constituting an extension. Therefore, the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) was applicable, disallowing interest on borrowed capital for acquiring assets until they were put to use. The Court upheld the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal acted illegally and perversely in holding that the interest of Rs. 9,05,976/- paid by the appellant on a term loan raised for acquiring an asset for its existing business is disallowable in view of the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal acted perversely in interpreting the words 'Expansion' and 'Extension' as synonymous, despite their separate usage in different sections of the Act carrying different meanings? 3. Whether the Tribunal acted perversely and illegally in holding that an increase in spindle capacity in the appellant's Unit constitutes an extension of business? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that there was no extension of business, but only an expansion, and the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) did not apply. It was contended that 'extension' and 'expansion' have different meanings, as evidenced by their separate use in Sections 80-IC(8)(ix), 80-IE(7)(iii), 80-ID(3)(i), 80IB, 33B, and 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. The assessee relied on CIT v. Modi Industries, 200 ITR 341 (Delhi) and CIT v. Relaxo Footwears Ltd., 293 ITR 231 (Delhi). Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue, other than the implicit support for the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),Section 260A,Section 80-IC(8)(ix),Section 80-IE(7)(iii),Section 80-ID(3)(i),Section 80IB,Section 33B,Section 80IA(4)(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

t-" :::> 0u J: (!)-J: <Cz ~ c:::«J:cz« CD«,z ::,:) c.. Income Tax Appeal NO.9 of 2011 1 n ~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. "~ Income Tax Appeal No.9 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.4.2011 Mis. Nahar Poly Films ltd. n- Appellant -, Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax ludhiana --- Respondent CORAM: HON'BlE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEl HON'BlE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITrAL. Present: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the appellant-assessee. AJAY KUMAR MITrAL, J. , , This appeal under Section 260A of the Inc~me-Tax Act, 1961 , I ' , " (for shprt "the Act") has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.5.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandi~arh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 146/CHANDI/09,relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The followingsubstantial questions of law have been claimed for determination of this Court: . a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted illegally and perversely, in holding that the -- ~::t. ""- I J- et:: :::J 0U J: ,(!)-J:«z ~ Q:: <3: J: 0 Z« QJ«.., z ':::> a.. , Income Tax Appeal NO.9 of 2011 '2 interest of

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,641 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →