COMMR.OF I.T.-I,HYD vs. A.P.GAS POWER COR.LTD,HYD

ITTA/135/2003HC TelanganaHBHC01029811200314 September 2022Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that interest paid on capital borrowed for business purposes is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, even if incurred during the pre-production period for expansion. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order allowing expenses like financial charges, commission, and interest incurred during the pre-production period for expansion of an existing plant. The Assessing Officer had disallowed these expenses, considering them capitalised.

What were the issues?

Whether pre-production expenses, including interest on borrowed capital for business expansion, are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show 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.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
rdrge nrcx couRT FoR THE srATE oF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE FOUR TEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND fWerrffV fWO '- ' PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY tNco ETAXT RIBUN APPE NO:135 03 F Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1g61 arising out of the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ,,B,, , Hyderabad in r'T.A. No. 668 r Ht 2ooo dated 31-05-2002 for Assessment year 1997 -98 preferred against the order of the commissioner of rncome Tax ( Appears ) rv Hvderabad dated 8-09-2000 in Appear No. 1 13 / Jc.sRI / crr (A) rv 12000-01. Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax , Hyderabad _ | AND ...APPELLANT l*i3"t!i ??i5,""9::"o'0"'"tion Ltd , Frat No. 202,2"d Froor, pancom chambers, C.oun_s_e-l for the Appeltant: SRl. B. NARASIMHA SARMA REPRESENTING Ms. K.Mamatha Choudhary Counsel for the Respondent: SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN

..,RESPONDENT

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAI BHUYAN AN.D THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY I.T.T.A.No. 135 of 2003 JUDGMENT.. fp"'the Hon'b/e the Chief Justie Ltjjal Bhulan) Heard Mr. R.Narsimha Sarma, learned c

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 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →