NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, LUDHIANA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free surplus funds (Rs. 695.56 Cr) compared to the total investment in assets and work-in-progress (Rs. 97.39 Cr). Therefore, the use of interest-bearing funds could be covered by the surplus interest-free funds, and no disallowance was warranted.
What were the facts?
The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) upholding an addition of Rs. 64,15,446/-. The addition was made by the AO due to the assessee allegedly mixing interest-bearing funds with own funds for acquiring fixed assets and capital work-in-progress.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of interest expenses is justified when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments in fixed assets and capital work-in-progress?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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. Max India Ltd.68 citing388 ITR 81 · 2016 · HC
- Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT64 citing381 ITR 107 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 04.07.2024 passed for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.64,15,446/-. A.Y.2010-11 2
With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. This disallowance has been made by the AO for the reason that assessee has mixed funds and it has used interest bearing funds for purchase of fixed assets as well as for capital work-in-progress. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record the details in tabulator form and submitted that assessee has Rs.695.56 Cr surplus funds which is the interest free funds. As against this, total investment for purchase of assets as well as expenditure incurred towards work-in-progress is only Rs.97.39 Cr. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a series of judgements propounding therein that if assessee has more interest free funds, then user of interest bearing funds for non business purpose can be taken care from those surplus funds and no disallowance is to be made.
In the present case, we find that assessee has sufficient interest free funds which can take care of purchase of fixed assets as well as incurrence of expenditure towards capital field. For fortifying our view, we put reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities 313 ITR Page 340, CIT Vs Max India Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 3 388 ITR 81 (P&H) and Bright Enterprises Vs CIT 381 ITR
4. In view of the above, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is deleted.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Nipun Malhotra, Mandi vs ITO, Ward, MandiChandigarh20 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (capital + unsecured loan) to cover the advances given to individuals, thus the advances were presumed to be from interest-free funds. The advance to...
- Sh. Varinder Kumar Gupta, Patiala vs Pr. CIT, PatialaChandigarh28 Apr 2020Allowed
Also relies on Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to properly examine the assessee's explanations and directed fishing and roving inquiries. The PCIT's satisfaction was not objectively justifiable based on material on record.
- Haryana State Warehousing Corporation… vs ACIT, Circle, PanchkulaChandigarh30 Sept 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete disallowances for Section 35AD and prior period expenses, citing judicial precedents. For the Assessee's appeal concerning interest o...
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs Addl. CIT, New DelhiDelhi9 Nov 2017Partly Allowed
Also relies on Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that statutory duties paid by the assessee are allowable as deduction under Section 43B on the basis of payment itself, irrespective of the accounting method. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recomp...
- Taurian Iron & Steel Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Addl CIT RG 4(3), MumbaiMumbai16 Sept 2016Partly Allowed
Also relies on Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the provision for leave encashment was pending before the Supreme Court and restored it to the AO for disposal in conformity with the apex court's judgment. Other grounds were d...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
