COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASHINI LEASE FINANCE P.LTD
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeals without considering the facts, particularly the possibility of circular trading for tax evasion. The matter was restored to the High Court for fresh disposal.
What were the facts?
The assessee acquired shares of AEC Ltd. using borrowed funds from sister companies. The AO disallowed interest expenses, suspecting circular trading to evade tax. The High Court dismissed the department's appeal, relying on previous tribunal decisions.
What were the issues?
Whether interest paid on borrowed funds used for acquiring shares, with a potential for circular trading and tax evasion, is allowable as expenditure.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3343 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.14531/2007) Commr. of Income Tax-I, Ahmedabad ...Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Ashini Lease Finance P. Ltd. ...Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3344 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19727/2007) ORDER None appears for the respondent, though served. Leave granted. These Civil Appeals are filed by the Department against the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 20th December, 2006 in Tax Appeals No.918/2006 and 919/2006. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the facts of the present case were similar to the facts in the case of Akalu Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Aashini Lease Finance Pvt. Ltd. in which the Tribunal has considered all aspects and has decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the Department’s appeals stood dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, these Civil Appeals. The short question which arose for consideration before the High Court was: Whether the acquisition of shares by the assessee was with the object of getting control 1
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3 over Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. (AEC) and, if so, whether interest paid by the assessee to M/s. Torrent Financiers was allowable as expenditure under Section 36 (1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act? In this case, we are concerned with the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997- 98. The AO found that borrowed funds were invested to acquire control of AEC. Accordingly, he disallowed the interest expenses under Section 36(1)(iii). This was on the footing that assessee had paid interests to Torrent Financiers and Torrent Leasing and Finance Private Limited (sister companies of the assessee). According to the order of assessment, borrowed funds were deployed by the assessee Company during the relevant year in order to purchase equity shares of AEC, which Company is subsequently taken over not by the assessee but by the Torrent Group. During the relevant year, the total investment made by the assessee in the take over and acquisition of business of AEC amounted to only Rs.22,59,969/-. To this extent, there is no difficulty. The problem arises where the AO has detected that after acquiring the shares of AEC Ltd., the assessee herein has sold the shares of AEC at Rs.63,57,925/- and further that subsequently, the said AEC Ltd. has been taken over and acquired by the Torrent Group. The record indicates, prima facie, that the assessee Company had acquired the shares of AEC through finances arranged mainly from Torrent Group (sister companies) along with two other companies only to enable Torrent Group to acquire and take over the business of AEC. The question, therefore, which arose for consideration before the High Court was: Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of interests paid by it to the Torrent Group? Prima facie, it appears to us that the High Court has lost sight of 2
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3 the above facts which, if proved and established, would indicate circular trading entered into solely with the idea of evading tax. This prima facie view is expressed only in support of our present order as relevant aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal and, therefore, the above reasons should not be taken as our conclusion. Therefore, in our view, the High Court had erred in dismissing the appeals on the ground that no substantial question of law arose for determination. For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 20th December, 2006. We restore Tax Appeals Nos.918/2006 and 919/2006 on to the file of the High Court with a direction to the High Court to dispose of these appeals in accordance with law. Civil Appeals are, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs. ...................J. (S.H. KAPADIA) ...................J. (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY) New Delhi, May 06, 2008. 3
More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shah Brothers, West Singhbhum vs ACIT/DCIT, Cen Cir-1, RanchiITA 239/RAN/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026