CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.

286 ITR 1High Court2006#204 most cited

What is CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. authority for?

For interest on borrowed capital to be deductible under Section 36(1)(iii), there must be a nexus between the use of the borrowed funds and the purpose of the business. This decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT (2008).

359

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. · 286 ITR 1 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest on borrowed capital · disallowance · commercial expediency · use of borrowed funds for business · nexus of funds · interest-free advances · overruled by Munjal Sales Corporation

Also reported as

156 Taxmann 25756 Taxmann.com 391

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2627/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2627/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Income Tax, Vs. 9, Cathedral Road, Non-Corporate Circle 8, Chennai - 600 086. Chennai Pan: Aaacc 3000F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami ManivasagamFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2627/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner of Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Income Tax, Vs. 9, Cathedral Road, Non-Corporate Circle 8, Chennai - 600 086. Chennai PAN: AAACC 3000F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by :…

KAPIL FOODS AND STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 206/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Warangal. Pan: Aacck2614F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 09.12.2024 For The A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Identical & Belong To The Same Assessee, One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…e by the Ld. AO was justified. In support of his submission, the Ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in K. Somasundaram & Brothers v. CIT dated 03.08.1998 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1. It ITA No.205/Hyd/2025 7 was argued that the ratio of these judgments applies squarely to the case of the assessee and the appeal of the assessee deserves dismissal. 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As far as the admission of additional evidence is concerned, the assessee has filed audited balance s…

KAPIL FOODS AND STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 205/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Warangal. Pan: Aacck2614F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 09.12.2024 For The A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Identical & Belong To The Same Assessee, One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…e by the Ld. AO was justified. In support of his submission, the Ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in K. Somasundaram & Brothers v. CIT dated 03.08.1998 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1. It ITA No.205/Hyd/2025 7 was argued that the ratio of these judgments applies squarely to the case of the assessee and the appeal of the assessee deserves dismissal. 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As far as the admission of additional evidence is concerned, the assessee has filed audited balance s…

Showing 120 of 359 · Page 1 of 18

...