M/S. THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the valuation report from the statutory auditor was not permissible under Rule 11UA. However, it also found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the NAV method solely based on the market value of land instead of book value.
What were the facts?
The assessee company invested in its wholly owned subsidiary and paid interest on borrowed capital. The Assessing Officer disallowed proportionate interest on the grounds of diversion of funds for non-business purposes. An addition was also made under Section 56(2)(viib) for share premium received.
What were the issues?
Whether interest on borrowed funds invested in a subsidiary is allowable as a business expenditure, and whether the valuation of shares for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) was correctly determined.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.2,118 citing313 ITR 340 · 2009 · HC
- S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT1,484 citing288 ITR 1 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.501 citing410 ITR 466 · 2019 · SC
- Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT361 citing379 ITR 347 · 2015 · SC · Read judgment
- Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT346 citing38 ITR 601 · 1960 · SC
- 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.126 citing82 ITR 166 · 1971 · SC
- CIT v. Hotel Savera119 citing239 ITR 795 · 1999 · HC
- CIT v. Tin Box Company80 citing260 ITR 637 · 2003 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, CIT(A), Chennai - 18, both dated 26.05.2025 for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenie
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.
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 56(2)(viib)
- M/S Namdev Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-1, JaipurITA 1255/JPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Payswiff Technologies Private Limited… vs DCIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 131/HYD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Radison Estates Private Limited, Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 519/BANG/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Income Tax Officer - 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs Coolberg Beverages Pvt Ltd, MumbaiITA 4286/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Medwell Ventures Private Limited, Delhi vs The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1775/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026