151 ITR 653 (Mad.), CIT v. Coimbatore Salem Transports (p) Ltd.

61 ITR 480High Court1966#8698 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(28A)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

tax recovery officersection 36(1)(ii)interest free advancessection 51mistake apparent from recordsection 36(1)(iii)section 10aacomputer softwarecommercial expediencysection 10asection 36(1)section 36

Judgments citing 151 ITR 653 (Mad.), CIT v. Coimbatore Salem Transports (p) Ltd.

GAYATRI ENERGY VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 467/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas & CA Swapnil DeshukhFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

…on business purpose and the investment on shares beyond track of business activities has all ingredients of "commercial expediency", is on the appellant. There are various case laws which supports this contention viz. CIT Vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport P. Ltd.61 ITR 480 (Mad), Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. CIT,193 ITR 344 (Ori), CIT Vs Abhishek Ind (P&H) 286 20 ITA.No.467/Hyd./2025 ITR1. In the case of R. Dalmia Vs. CIT 133 ITR 169 (Del.) the Hon'ble High Court decided that "Where the interest paid concerns the borrowed money for business as well as non business purposes, the claim may be disallowed in…

DEV BHUMI DOLD CHAIN PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3163/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…ghment charges, etc. It was contended that such expenses were incurred for business purposes only. To buttress his argument. the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Coimbatore Salem Transport (P.) Ltd. [1966] 61 ITR 480 (Mad). 5. The next issue is in respect of disallowance of Rs.15,77,164/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was submitted that the sum of Rs.15,77,164/- was paid to various persons through Mr. Rehmat Ali, who got the job of packing fruits, dry fruits, etc. through various labours. He acted as a head on behalf of various labours whom payments…

M/S RAJ KUMAR SINGH & CO.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1288/LKW/1993[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…cannot be accepted as regular business activity of the assessee. It is now well settled that the burden of proof that the monies borrowed in had not been utilized for non-business purposes is on the assessee (CIT vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport (P) Ltd. (1966) 61 ITR 480, 487 (Mad.). The assessee was required to furnish a chart showing utilization of borrowed funds and prove that borrowed money was not used for non-business purposes. The chart has been furnished in respect of big amounts of deposits. On perusal of the chart so furnished, it is seen that substantial borrowed funds have been directly utilized for pu…

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…om debtors stand unproved and unsubstantiated. Moreover, it is clear that the huge advances made are not for business purpose. It has been held in CIT vs. Sujani Textiles (P) Ltd., [1985] 151 ITR 653 (Mad.), CIT vs. Coimbatore Salem Transports (p) Ltd. [1966] 61 ITR 480 (Mad.) and Mr. Mohd. Ali vs. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 413 (Mad.) that it is for the assessee to prove that each of the loans on which he paid interest were utilized for business. In the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that the presence of commercial expediency alone determines M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US allow…

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 538/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…om debtors stand unproved and unsubstantiated. Moreover, it is clear that the huge advances made are not for business purpose. It has been held in CIT vs. Sujani Textiles (P) Ltd., [1985] 151 ITR 653 (Mad.), CIT vs. Coimbatore Salem Transports (p) Ltd. [1966] 61 ITR 480 (Mad.) and Mr. Mohd. Ali vs. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 413 (Mad.) that it is for the assessee to prove that each of the loans on which he paid interest were utilized for business. In the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that the presence of commercial expediency alone determines M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US allow…

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 537/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…om debtors stand unproved and unsubstantiated. Moreover, it is clear that the huge advances made are not for business purpose. It has been held in CIT vs. Sujani Textiles (P) Ltd., [1985] 151 ITR 653 (Mad.), CIT vs. Coimbatore Salem Transports (p) Ltd. [1966] 61 ITR 480 (Mad.) and Mr. Mohd. Ali vs. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 413 (Mad.) that it is for the assessee to prove that each of the loans on which he paid interest were utilized for business. In the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that the presence of commercial expediency alone determines M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US allow…

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…om debtors stand unproved and unsubstantiated. Moreover, it is clear that the huge advances made are not for business purpose. It has been held in CIT vs. Sujani Textiles (P) Ltd., [1985] 151 ITR 653 (Mad.), CIT vs. Coimbatore Salem Transports (p) Ltd. [1966] 61 ITR 480 (Mad.) and Mr. Mohd. Ali vs. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 413 (Mad.) that it is for the assessee to prove that each of the loans on which he paid interest were utilized for business. In the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that the presence of commercial expediency alone determines M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US allow…

NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED (ON BEHALF OF MERGED ENTITY VADINAR OIL TERMINAL LIMITED) ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 777/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.777/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nayara Energy Ltd (On Acit, Central Circle-2(1) बिधम/ Behalf Of Merged Entity Room No. 804, Pratishtha Vs. Vadinar Oil Terminal Ltd) Bhavan, Old Cgo 5Th Floor, Jet Airways Annexe, M. K. Road, Godrej Bkc, G- Block, Plot Mumbai-400020. C-68, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2626D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 36(1) (Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act The Act - Rs.149.80 Crores 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) & Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.149.80 Crores Pertaining To Loans Of Rs.1253.53 Crores Granted To Related Parties Contending Them To Be Interest Free Without Appreciating The Fact, That Out Of The Total Amount, Only Security Deposits Of Rs.96.53 Crores Are Interest Free Refundable

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 37

…bmitted the statement of loans/advances as called for. . The onus of proving that the borrowed money had not been utilised for non business purpose was on the assessee. The Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Coimbatore Salem Transport Pvt. Ltd. (61 ITR 480,487) may be referred to in this regard. Further, the Madras High Court in the case of Mir Mohammad Ali (38 ITR 413,418) held that it is for the assessee to prove that each of the loans on which he paid the interest was utilised for the purpose of his business. The said decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case reported 52 ITR 165…

SHRI SAHIL SURENDRA SAHARIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DIBRUGARH

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 56/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…s.70,00,000/- was routed back to assessee. Reliance was placed for following Judgments: (i) DClT Vs. AG. GovindarajuJu [2012] 108 ITR 888 (Madj (ii) Shahzada Nand & Sans Vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 358 (Se) (iii) CIT Vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport Pvt. Ltd. (1966) 61 ITR 480 (Mad) (iv) Aluminium Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1972) 86 TTR 11 (SC) (v) Swastic Textiles Co .(P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 155 (Guj) (vi) Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores Vs. CIT (1974) 95 JTR 664 (Pat) (vii) . CIT Vs. ASK. Rathinasamy Nadar (1995) 212 ITR 527 (Mad) (viii) Lokshminarain Modonlal Vs. CIT (1972) 86 TTR 439 (SC) and (ix) Dr.G.G.Joshi…

BABA SATYANARAYAN HIMGHAR P. LTD.,,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 23, , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 830/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…ssee could have reduced his debt and consequently the interest payment. In this respect the observation of the Tribunal in the case of Coimbatore Salem Transport (P) Ltd., affirmed by the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport (P) Ltd. (1966) 61 ITR 480 (Mad), was as under: "The worst that can be said is that if such advances had not been given, the assessee could have reduced 4 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Baba Satyanarayan Himghar Pvt. Limited its indebtedness and thereby its interest charges. But that would be venturing into realms that are not open to the Department. It is a matter of busin…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL CABLE INDUSTRIES, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4145/Del/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…India Ltd. (2017) 80 taxmann.com 98 (P&H) c) CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 59 taxmann.com 294 (Raj.) d) Sunil Goel vs. ACIT (2008) 118 TTJ 415 (Del) e) CIT vs. Hotel Savera, (1998) 148 CTR 585 (Mad HC) f) CIT vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport (P) Ltd. (1966) 61 ITR 480 (Mad HC) g) CIT vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 144 (Cal HC) h) D & H Secheron Electrodes P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 528 (MP HC) The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is having CC limit of Rs. 70 Lakh only which is evident from sanction letter of Union Bank for CC limit. Therefore, when the assessee is having limit of Rs. 7…

ESSAR POWER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1849/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri K. S. Rajendrakumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 271Section 36

…ame company, VPCL which has charged interest on the imputed ICD, It has been held in the following case laws that primarily the onus is on the assessee to prove that interest claimed is deductible U/s.36(l)(iii (i) CIT vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport Pvt. Ltd. 61 ITR 480 (Mad.) (ii) Kishinchand Cheliaram vs. CIT 114 ITR 654 (Bom.) (iii) R. Dalmiya vs. CIT 133 ITR 169 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs. M.S.Venkateshwaran 222 ITR 163 (Mad.) (v) K.Somasundaram & Brothers vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad.) 17 Essar Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT (vi) CIT vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del.) has confirmed in principle in Motor Gen…

ACIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RUPEE FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT P.TLD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYrs

ITA 5122/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…1 Rupee Finance & Management Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNNAL MUMBAI BENCH ‘’D’’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A.No.4255/Mum/2015 - AY 2009-10 I.T.A.No.4835 /Mum/2015 - AY 2010-11 Rupee Finance & Management V/s Dy.CIT, Cir 7(2), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 135, Continental Bldg Dr Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai-18 PAN : AABCR9194C Appellant Respondent I.T.A.No.5122/Mum/2015 (Assessment year 2010-11) ACIT 7(2), Mumbai V/s Rupee Finance & Management Pvt Ltd, 135, Continental Bldg Dr Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai-18 Assessee by Shri Sanjeev…