3.4 In British Paints (India) Ltd. v. CIT

190 ITR 196High Court1991#19650 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing 3.4 In British Paints (India) Ltd. v. CIT

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&

Section 143(3)Section 147

…utta)  Reckitt & Coleman of India vs. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 698 (Calcutta)  India Explosives Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 392 (Calcutta)  Alkali & Chemical Corporation of India Ltd. vs. [1986] 161 ITR 820 (Calcutta)  British Paints (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 196 (Calcutta)  Consolidated Investments Ltd. vs. DCIT [1996] 57 ITD 286 (Madras)  Durametallic (India) Ltd. vs. IAC [1991] 38 ITD 211 (Madras)  East India Pharmaceutical Works vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) 47. We also noted the fact that the assessee receives interest income on tax free bonds which investment is made to fulfil of the SLR norm…

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)

…out of borrowed funds only: a) Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 219 (Cal) b) Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 698 (Cal) c) Indian Explosives Ltd. vs. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 392 (Cal) d) British Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 190 ITR 196 (Cal) e) Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 72 ITD 1 11 f) Alkali and Chemical Corporation India Ltd. vs. CIT (1987) 161 ITR 820 (Cal) Without prejudice to above, the Ld. AR submitted that in fact interest cannot be disallowed unless direct nexus is established between the interest bearing borrowed funds and diversion of such borrowed funds wh…

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, the ground no

ITA 10/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 244A

…ssentially depend upon whether the entire profits had been pumped into the overdraft account, whether such profits were more than the tax amount paid for the relevant year and other germane factors.................” 3.4 In British Paints (India) Ltd. v/s CIT 190 ITR 196 (Cal) held (i) that the Tribunal was not right in presuming that payments of the assessee-company’s income-tax liability were made during the previous year out of its overdraft from the bank when all the company’s sale proceeds and receipts during the year covering its profits far in excess of such tax liability were being deposited in that overd…

M/S Bharti Teletech Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)

ITA 753/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…has also not brought on record any material to show the nexus no disallowance was to be made. In its support the appellant has relied on the judgement of Calcutta High Court in case of Indian Explosive 147 ITR 392, Woolcom Bers 134 ITR 219 and British Paints 190 ITR 196. The appellant has also submitted that except for payment of interest to Bharti enterprises all other interest was paid on secured loans as well as against overdraft facilities. According to the appellant it was also in the business of advancing and that it had earned income by way of interest in preceding previous years which were offered to tax…