RITURAJ STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), BILASPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. It held that the CIT(A) failed to examine whether the advances were made out of non-interest bearing funds or if they were commercially expedient, which are crucial aspects for disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii).
What were the facts?
The assessee, Rituraj Steel Private Limited, filed its ITR declaring income of Rs. 87,42,930/-. During scrutiny, the AO disallowed Rs. 1,87,000/- as interest under Section 36(1)(iii) for interest-free advances given to sister concerns, arguing these were made from interest-bearing borrowed funds. The assessee contended the advances were from capital and interest-free funds.
What were the issues?
The key legal issue is whether the interest-free advances to sister concerns were made from interest-bearing borrowed funds or non-interest bearing funds, and if such advances were for commercial expediency, impacting the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.
- South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT508 citing438 ITR 1 · 2021 · SC · Read judgment
- Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT191 citing298 ITR 298 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT146 citing224 ITR 627 · 1997 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM: This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2017-18 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.10.2025 of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysore [‘Addl. CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).
The sole effective issue raised by the appellant
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 →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026