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).

How many judgments cite CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.?

359 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 14A, Section 37(1), Section 133(6), Section 147.

CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1)

M/S Moira Steel Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 593/IND/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 593/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Moira Steel Limited, Vs. Dy. Cit, Shanivar Darpan Press 1(1), Complex, Indore. A.B. Road, Indore अपीलाथ" / अपीलाथ" /Appellant अपीलाथ" / अपीलाथ" / ""यथ" / ""यथ" /Respondent ""यथ" / ""यथ" / "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aabcm2051K अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Shri C.P.Rawka, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/ ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By ""यथ" क" ओर से/ ""यथ" क" ओर से/ Shri Mohd. Javed, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing सुनवाई क" तारीख/ सुनवाई क" तारीख/ सुनवाई क" तारीख/ 02.03.2017 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/ उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/ उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/ 03.03.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / आदेश /O R D E R आदेश / आदेश /

Section 143(3)

…d others has gone into extending such non-interest bearing and non-bearing advance, then the disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act is fully justified. The ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance to fortify his view on the decision of Abhishek Industries Limited, 286 ITR 1 ( P & H) & Madhav Prasad Jatia,1 18 ITR 200 (S.C.) and confirmed the disallowance so made. 1.3 Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has paid interest of Rs. 3,58,074/- to Bank, Rs. 4,02,148/- to MPFC and Rs. 42,556/- to others totalling to Rs. 8,0…

Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 493/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 10Section 10BSection 2

…in all these decisions except in the case of Oracle Software the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. 271 ITR 331 was referred to by the court. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of ''CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 (P&H) has observed as under on the Responsibility of the Tribunal while deciding the case: "The Tribunal being the last fact-finding authority, a higher responsibility is cast by the Legislature on it to decide the cases by recording complete facts and assigning cogent reasons. It is the duty of the Tribunal to decide the cases on the basis of the…

ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 473/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 10Section 10BSection 2

…in all these decisions except in the case of Oracle Software the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. 271 ITR 331 was referred to by the court. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of ''CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 (P&H) has observed as under on the Responsibility of the Tribunal while deciding the case: "The Tribunal being the last fact-finding authority, a higher responsibility is cast by the Legislature on it to decide the cases by recording complete facts and assigning cogent reasons. It is the duty of the Tribunal to decide the cases on the basis of the…

Lakhani Shoee Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 854/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Vasudeva (C.A)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Chandel (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 854/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13. cuke M/s Lakhani Shoe Co. Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Plot No. 130, Sector-24, Circle-2, Faridabad – 121005 Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAACL 2991 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.C. Vasudeva (C.A) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenu…

ACIT, Chennai vs. R.K.Swamy Bbdo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 504/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 504/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. R.K. Swamy Bbdo Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle Vs. Film Chamber Building, 20(1), Chennai 34. Post Bag No. 456, 604, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaccr2213F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, Dated 22.12.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Effective Grounds: (I) Deletion Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation On Lease Hold Improvements To The Tune Of ₹.10,10,248/-, (Ii) Deletion Of Addition Of ₹.44,76,050/- Towards Excess Rent Paid & (Iii) Deletion Of Addition Of ₹.40,86,687/- On Account Of Interest On Deposits.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…n view of this, the Assessing Officer made an addition of a sum of ₹.61,08,050/- in the shape of excess rent, after holding that fair market rent was even less than the standard rent. In the same tune, he quoted case law of CIT v. Abhishek Industries Limited (286 ITR 1)(P&H) and concluded that the reasonable interest 8 I.T.A. No.504/M/16 free advance had to be worked out which was to be restricted qua interest debited to profit and loss account amounting to ₹.1,54,519/-. 8. Coming to the assessee’s claim of depreciation (supra), we notice that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim to the extent of ₹.16…

E-City Investments & Holdings Comapny P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

ITA 1153/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…(1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC), CIT vs Malayalam Plantation Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT vs Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) and CIT vs Dalmia Cements (B.) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del.), CIT vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P & H). Identical ratio was laid down in S.P. Jaiswal Estates (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (2013) 140 ITD 19 (Kolkata)(TM); 29 taxman.com 221 (Kolkata)(Trib.)(TM). 2.12 To sum up the matter, in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement and the factual matrix available on record, we find that the money was advanced by the assessee holding company to…

Smt. Rekha Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6667/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6667/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Smt. Rekha Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-11, Nizamuddin West, Ward-52(4), New Delhi-110013 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg5119J Assessee By : Sh. P. D. Mittal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.10.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon.

For Appellant: Sh. P. D. Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 133A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-II’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 6667/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Smt. Rekha Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-11, Nizamuddin West, Ward-52(4), New Delhi-110013 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAPG5119J Assessee by : Sh. P. D. Mittal, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30.10.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon. 2. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirma…

Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Raniganj vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Asansol

In the result, ITA No.1983/Kol/2014 is partly allowed while ITA

ITA 1983/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & Jcit Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (Pan:Aaffr 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri U.Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 6

…mmissioner of Income Tax v Winsome Textile Industries Ltd reported in (2009) 319 ITR 204 (Punj & Har) in which also the Court had observed as under: "7. We do not find any merit in this submission. The judgement of this court in Abhishek Industries Ltd (2006) 286 ITR 1 was on the issue of allowability of interest paid on loans given to sister concerns, without interest. It was held that deduction for interest was permissible when loan was taken for business purpose and not for diverting the same to sister concern without having nexus with the business. The observations made therein have to be read in that context…

Shri Gulshan Bathla, Sonepat vs. JCIT, Sonepat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly

ITA 4100/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath & Rajkumar, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4100/Del /2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Gulshan Bathla Vs. The A.C.I.T. M/s Samta Automobiles Range Sonepat Greem Crescemt Road New Delhi New Delhi PAN : ADEPB 4349 N [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 27.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 19 .08.2016 Appellant by : Shri K. Sampath & Rajkumar, Advs Respondent by : Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed ag…

ITO, Ward-32(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Raghunath Exporters, Kolkata

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

ITA 2166/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)

…iven for an I.T.A. No. 2166/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 6 of 10 aggregate amount of around Rs.1.5 crores and investment in shares made to the extent of Rs.2.42 crores. In doing so, the AO has relied upon decision of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries 286 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that payments made to sister concerns without bearing any interest against borrowed funds resulted in disallowance of interest in the hands of the person making the payments. The disallowance made and upheld by the Punjab & Haryana High Court was on the reason that the burden of onus could not be discharged by the tax payer…

ACIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. V.S. Apte & Son, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6934/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Acit-18(1), Vs. M/S. V. S. Apte & Son, Room No.116,1St Floor, Piramal 325, Adhyaru Industrial Chambers, Parel, Estate, Mumbai-400 012. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. Pan: Aadfv 3228J Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…essee advancing interest free loans to various parties amounting to nearly Rs.2.82 crores, and in order to support his arguments ld. DR relied upon CIT vs. Avery Cycle Industries India Ltd. (2008) 209 CTR 167 (P&H) and CIT vs. Abhisek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). 9. On the other hand ld. AR representing the assessee relied upon the orders passed by CIT(A) and submitted that interest free loan given to the sister concern were partly allowed out of profit generated from the firm. It was argued by ld. AR that the AO has failed to take into consideration the fact that the family members of promoters has…

Real Trade Technologies, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 28, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2929/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…s should be disallowed. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of S.A. Builders (288 ITR 1)(SC) and also the decision rendered by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries (286 ITR 1). Accordingly the Learned CIT set aside the assessment order passed by the assessing officer and restored the matter to his file with the direction to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned Pr. CIT, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 5. The learned AR su…

DCIT (OSD) RG 10(1), Mumbai vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1278/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Years:2008-09

Section 14ASection 43(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Years:2008-09 M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., vs DCIT-10(2), C/o- Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Aayakar Bhavan Army & Navy Building, M.K.Road, 3rd Floor, 148. M.G. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAACG0617Q Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT-10(2), vs M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan C/o- Kalyaniwalla & Mistry M.K.Ro…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 152/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Years:2008-09

Section 14ASection 43(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Years:2008-09 M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., vs DCIT-10(2), C/o- Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Aayakar Bhavan Army & Navy Building, M.K.Road, 3rd Floor, 148. M.G. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAACG0617Q Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT-10(2), vs M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan C/o- Kalyaniwalla & Mistry M.K.Ro…

ACIT, Chennai vs. R.K.Swamy Bbdo (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 47/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Durai Pandian, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…assessee has paid 9. Rs.4,25,00,000/- as rental deposit to the owner M/s. Tiruvengadam Investments Private Limited, while deposit is more than the value of investments. The ld. Assessing Officer relied on the decision of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Limited 286 ITR 1 and has calculated excess interest disallowance in respect of Delhi and Mumbai property referred at page 6 of his order being "1,54,519/-. Aggrieved by the order, the ITA No.47/Mds/2015. :- 8 -: assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted 10. the disallowance o…

M/S Paliwal Overseas Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 3491/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.-3490 to 3495/Del/2011 (Assessment Years: 2000-01 to 2006-07) Paliwal Overseas Ltd. vs ACIT Paliwal Nagar, Central Circle G.T. Road, Panipat. Panipat. AABCP1067E Assessee by Sh. Satish Kumar Goel, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Ashish Chandra Mohanty, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These bunch of six appeals are filed against a consolidated order dated 18/03/2011 passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals)-Karnal for six different assessment years.…

M/S Paliwal Overseas Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 3490/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.-3490 to 3495/Del/2011 (Assessment Years: 2000-01 to 2006-07) Paliwal Overseas Ltd. vs ACIT Paliwal Nagar, Central Circle G.T. Road, Panipat. Panipat. AABCP1067E Assessee by Sh. Satish Kumar Goel, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Ashish Chandra Mohanty, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These bunch of six appeals are filed against a consolidated order dated 18/03/2011 passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals)-Karnal for six different assessment years.…

Accel Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 24/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…rovisions of Sec. 36(1) of the Act were the interest on borrowed capita is allowed only if utilized for the purposes of business of the assessee company and relied on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abishek Industries Ltd 286 ITR 1 and observed that the assessee company paid interest on borrowed funds without receiving any income or interest from sister concerns or subsidiaries which are enjoying the financial benefits at the cost of assessee company and disallowed interest of "77,60,162/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Ta…

Accel Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 23/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…rovisions of Sec. 36(1) of the Act were the interest on borrowed capita is allowed only if utilized for the purposes of business of the assessee company and relied on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abishek Industries Ltd 286 ITR 1 and observed that the assessee company paid interest on borrowed funds without receiving any income or interest from sister concerns or subsidiaries which are enjoying the financial benefits at the cost of assessee company and disallowed interest of "77,60,162/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Ta…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Accel Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 144/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…rovisions of Sec. 36(1) of the Act were the interest on borrowed capita is allowed only if utilized for the purposes of business of the assessee company and relied on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abishek Industries Ltd 286 ITR 1 and observed that the assessee company paid interest on borrowed funds without receiving any income or interest from sister concerns or subsidiaries which are enjoying the financial benefits at the cost of assessee company and disallowed interest of "77,60,162/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Ta…

CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.

M/S Moira Steel Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar

Lakhani Shoee Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, Alwar

ACIT, Chennai vs. R.K.Swamy Bbdo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

E-City Investments & Holdings Comapny P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

Smt. Rekha Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Raniganj vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Asansol

Shri Gulshan Bathla, Sonepat vs. JCIT, Sonepat

ITO, Ward-32(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Raghunath Exporters, Kolkata

ACIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. V.S. Apte & Son, Mumbai

Real Trade Technologies, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 28, Navi Mumbai

DCIT (OSD) RG 10(1), Mumbai vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT, Chennai vs. R.K.Swamy Bbdo (P) Ltd., Chennai

M/S Paliwal Overseas Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

M/S Paliwal Overseas Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

Accel Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Accel Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Accel Limited, Chennai