How many judgments cite ACIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (322 ITR 20), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148.

ACIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.

322 ITR 20Supreme Court of India2010#10019 most cited

What is ACIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. authority for?

Exchange differences are required to be capitalized if the liabilities are incurred for acquiring fixed assets, such as plant and machinery. The purpose for which the loan is raised is of prime significance.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. · exchange differences · capital expenditure · fixed asset · loan for capital goods · foreign currency loan · capitalization · Section 143(3)

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 83

Sections most often in play

Section 139 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

company india total income

Judgments citing ACIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.

Wheels India Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy. S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.696/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. M/S. Wheels India Ltd., The Acit, No.21, Annasalai Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacw 0315 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ncy loan borrowed for acquiring indigenous capital goods. Since the expenditure was incurred in connection with acquisition of capital goods, it cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (322 ITR 20). Para. 8 of the order reads as under: "8. Before analyzing the section quoted above, by way of preface, we need to state the exchange differences are required to be capitalized if the liabilities are incurred for acquiring the fixed asset, like plant and machinery. It is the purpose for which the loan is raised that is of prime significance. Whe…

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3236/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 v. M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The DCIT, 98-A, 7th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [PAN: AAACS 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /R…

Wheels India Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu 1 Chennai, Chennai

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeptha (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद4 एवं माननीय +ी संजय सरमा, "ाियक सद4 के सम7। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2770/Chny/2019 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम M/s. Wheels India Ltd. ACIT Padi, Chennai 600 050. Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai. / Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACW-0315-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2700/Chny/2019 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT…

ACIT Ltu 2 Chennai, Chennai vs. Wheels India Limited, Chennai

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2700/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeptha (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43A

Oriental Aromatics Ltd, Mumbi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6331/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92(1)

…sessee as capital asset or as a fixed capital. The assessee also relied on the decision of CIT vs. Sandoz (I) [1994] 206 ITR 599 (Bombay) where the Apex Court decision Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT under the decision of ACIT vs. EleconEngg. Co. Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxmann 83 (SC) were cited. However this case was with concern to section 43A Income Tax Act. I have gone through the submission of the appellant and also gone through the Assessment order, the Assessing officer has contended that the loan given by the assessee was given in different periods i.e. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 201 1-12 which was returned…

Francois Compressor India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2504/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41(1)Section 92C

…ned for a purpose of acquiring the fixed asset. It is purpose for which loan is raised that determines the character of the loss on account of foreign exchange variation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., 322 ITR 20 (SC). The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (supra) was followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd., 336 ITR 479 (Bom.). To the similar effect the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd. vs. Jt.…

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Sintex Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal ITAs 2786/Ahd/2014, 1416/Ahd/2018, and 1417/Ahd/2018 filed by revenue are dismissed and appeal ITA No

ITA 2786/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…= made on account of foreign gain. Even otherwise, the issue involved in the present Tax Appeal is squarely answered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Elecon Engineering Company Limited, reported in 189 Taxmann 83 [2010] 10.1 At this stage, decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. India Gelatine & Chemicals Limited, [2015] 376 ITR 553 [Guj] needs a reference where the Division Bench has held and observed that when the assessee had sufficient interest free funds out of which concerned investments had…

M/S. Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes because earlier the appeal was dismissed without deciding additional ground

ITA 1902/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 35Section 35ASection 36Section 43Section 43ASection 48Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. No.1902/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Health Care Global Vs. Asst. Commissioner Enterprises Ltd., of Income Tax, HCG Tower, No.8, Circle – 2(3)(1), Kalinga Rao Road, Bangalore. Sampangiram Nagar, Bengaluru-560 027 PAN: AAACC 8412H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.P.Srinivas, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 08.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 O R D E R PER SHRI PAV…

Sri Ramadas Paper Boards (P) Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Ramadas Paper Boards (P) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadcs2140M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 211

…l.)l (CA) wherein the Hon'ble Court held that the result of change in foreign exchange fluctuation would bear the same character (Capital or Revenue) for which the loans were taken The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT Vs Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 20 (A.Y1986-87)held that roll over charges paid on foreign exchange forward contracts in Sri Ramadas Paper Boards (P) Ltd., Hyd. respect of liabilities relating to the acquisition of 'fixed assets' are to be capitalized in terms of Expln.3 to S,43A as it stood prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2002, and same are not allowable as busines…

Egger Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.RFor Respondent: 11.07.2017

Section 43A

…issue before me is whether the loss on account of restatement of ECB was on revenue account or capital one, which is required to be tested in the light of generally accepted principle. The Supreme in the case of ACIT Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. in (2010) 322 ITR 20 (SC) wherein held that:- “reversing the decision of the High Court, proceeding on the basis that the purpose of the loan taken by the assessee was to finance the purchase of plant and machinery, and on the facts of this case, that it could not be said that the rollover charges had nothing to do with the fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Emerald Resilient Tyre Manufactures Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue appeal is allowed

ITA 371/CHNY/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Vikram

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(5)

…view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.1 However, before us ld. D.R brought to our knowledge, the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. in [2010] 322 ITR 20 (SC) whereinheld that:- :- 17 -: “reversing the decision of the High Court, proceeding on the basis that the purpose of the loan taken by the assessee was to finance the purchase of plant and machinery, and on the facts of this case, that it could not be said that the rollover charges had nothing to do with the fluctuation in the rate of foreign…