UFX VENTURES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the difference between interest paid on borrowed funds and interest charged on advances to related parties is disallowable. Advances to directors and key managerial personnel without commercial expediency are also subject to disallowance.
What were the facts?
The assessee company claimed interest expenses on loans taken for business purposes. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire interest expenditure, suspecting diversion of funds to related parties. The CIT(A) partly confirmed the disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether interest expenditure on borrowed funds is allowable when funds are advanced to related parties, and whether advances to directors/key managerial personnel were for business purposes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT1,484 citing288 ITR 1 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
PER S.R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:
These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two
orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 07.04.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14 & 2014-15. :- 2 -: ITA Nos.2272 & 2273/CHNY/2025
The grounds raise
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 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 →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026