THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. ANIL TRADECOM LTD., AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that as long as the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to cover interest-free loans, the presumption is that the advances were made from such funds. The CIT(A)'s approach of excluding current liabilities from interest-free funds was deemed incorrect.
What were the facts?
The assessee provided interest-free advances of Rs. 35.91 crores to certain concerns. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the interest expenditure, arguing that these advances were made from interest-bearing funds. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance, deleting a significant portion of it.
What were the issues?
Whether interest disallowance is justified when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available to cover interest-free advances. Whether current liabilities should be excluded when calculating interest-free funds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD
By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the order dated 3rd September 2015, passed by the learned CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad for the assessment year 2011-12, on the following grounds :- “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.41,74,048/- out of total disallowance of Rs.45,97,702/- made on account of interest payment u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act and restricting it to Rs.4,23,655/-. “2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned
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 →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026