187 ITR 363 (All.) 4. Indian Saving Products Ltd. v. CIT

265 ITR 250High Court2004#17450 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36(1)(iii)Section 801A(iv)

Issues it is cited on

disallowance of interest expenditurebusiness expediencysection 41(1)section 41section 36(1)(iii)section 44asection 40a(3)commercial expediencysundry creditorsdisallowance under section 14asection 40asection 36(1)(va)

Judgments citing 187 ITR 363 (All.) 4. Indian Saving Products Ltd. v. CIT

Bansal Pathways Damoh Katni P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhoopal

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 851/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibansal Pathways Damoh Dcit-1(1), बनाम Katni Private Limited, Bhopal / 15Th Floor Bansal One, Vs. Rani Kamlapati Railway Station, Bhopal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

…No.851/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2018-19 1. Patel Filter Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 21 (Guj.) 2. CIT vs. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 389 (Guj) 3. CIT vs. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 363 (All.) 4. Indian Saving Products Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 250 (Raj.) 5. Caldern Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 244 (Kal.) 6. CIT vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) 7. Somasundram & Bro. [1999] 238 ITR 939 (Madras) 8. Elmer Havell Electrics vs. CIT [2005] 277 ITR 549 (Del.) 9. Since, the assessee had diverted its borrowed fund to its prompter company without charging any inte…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Oriental Enterprises Private Limited, Pcc Notified Area

ITA 807/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…sidiary. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision to disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250), where it was not a question of law and in fact the assessee company has interest free funds which are more than 10 times the loan given. From the audited financial statements, the Ld.AR explained the details of own funds as on 31-3-2016 which are as follows: ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterpris…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Oriental Enterprises Private Limited, Pcc Notified Area

ITA 732/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…sidiary. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision to disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250), where it was not a question of law and in fact the assessee company has interest free funds which are more than 10 times the loan given. From the audited financial statements, the Ld.AR explained the details of own funds as on 31-3-2016 which are as follows: ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterpris…

Oriental Enterprise Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 661/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…sidiary. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision to disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250), where it was not a question of law and in fact the assessee company has interest free funds which are more than 10 times the loan given. From the audited financial statements, the Ld.AR explained the details of own funds as on 31-3-2016 which are as follows: ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterpris…

Diamond Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 346/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Uma Prasad, Sr. D.R
Section 36

…on the following decisions:- 1. Patel Filter Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 21 (Guj.) 2. CIT vs. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 389 (Guj.) 3. CIT vs. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 363 (All.) 4. Indian Saving Products Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 250 (Raj.) 5. Caldern Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 244 (Kal.) 6. CIT vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) 7. K. Somasundram & Bro. [1999] 238 ITR 939 (Madras) 8. Elmer Havell Electrics vs. CIT [2005] 277 ITR 549 (Del.) Thus, the contentions of the assessee lacks merit and could not be substantiated. 5.5 In view of the…