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 1High Court2006#212 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 366,005 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

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 14A Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 132(4)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

interest free advances section 36(1)(iii)put to use commercial expediency section 36(1)book profits section 36 disallowance u/s 14a disallowance under section 14a revenue expenditure section 14a capital expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jsr Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 875/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Geoerge & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 144

…22.11.2013. 10. Per contra, ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below and submitted that no presumption as argued by the ld. AR could be taken. According to him, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Abhishek Industries, 286 ITR 1, had taken a view that proportionate funding principle should be followed while construing interest disallowance relating to interest free loans given by the assessee. 11. Ad interim reply of the ld. AR was that the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries (supra) was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Cou…

Jsr Constrctions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl..C.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 741/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Geoerge & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 144

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…pose test held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemical Limited v 3128/Del/2014, AY: 2008-09 M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. CIT, 306 ITR 392. Further the assessee submitted that the judgment in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 (P&H) was not applicable as the Hon’ble Court was not having benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals (supra). Further, the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Siyaram Garg (HUF), 237 CTR 321 has followed the judgment in the case of Ponni Sugar an…

M/S. Jindal Steel & Power Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ion putforth later is an after though and clearly shows that his is a case squarely covered under the expression “furnishing of inaccurate particulars”. The relevance of the observations of the Hon’ble Pujab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Abhishek Industries 286 ITR 1 on the issue of avoidance of tax coincides perfectly with the 26 ITA No. 3052/Del/2014, AY:2008-06 M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. scheme of the appellant in devising means and methods to avoid taxation. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 7.4 Further; the addition of Rs. 49.42 lacs, the CIT(A) has upheld the levy of penalty by holding as…

Jindal Steel Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

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

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

ITA 31/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.31/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of R K Swamy Bbdo (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Film Chamber, 604-606, Non Corporate Circle 20, Anna Salai Chennai 600 006. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaccr2213F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2016 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) Iv, Chennai Dated 29.09.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Effective Grounds: (I) Deletion Of Disallowance Under Section 32(1) Towards Excess Depreciation On Lease Hold Improvements To The Tune Of ₹.15,45,209/-, (Ii) Deletion Of Addition Of ₹.61,08,050/- Towards Excess Rent Paid & (Iii) Deletion Of Addition Of ₹.1,54,519/- On Account Of Interest On Deposits.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Sriraman, 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 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/-.” 7.3 In view of the above decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee and moreover the ld. DR has not filed any ord…

E-City Investments & Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

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

…hese circumstances, the order of the Tribunal calls for no interference and in any case no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed 2.3.7. In the case of CIT V Is. Abhishek Industries Ltd, (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H), the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that besides raising substantial amount of term loan which, according to the assessee, is required to be repaid as per the fixed schedule agreed to at the time of disbursement of loan, there was substantial amount of loan in the form of working capital which was not required to be returned after any s…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Spl Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4927/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv

Section 271(1)(c)

…ssee had treated the said subsidy as capital receipt in its return of income, but the same was assessed as revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in assessee's own case reported in 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The Tribunal (supra) for the instant assessment year also held the said subsidy to be revenue in nature. However, the assessee has preferred SLP against the order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the question of law has been admitted and the SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The issue raised vide the pre…

Takshashila Academia of Economic Research Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 868/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

Section 10(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…if the assessee had made investment in shares out of its own funds, the assessee had taken loans on which interest was paid and all the money available with the assessee was in common kitty, as held by this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Limited, (2006) 286 ITR 1 and therefore, disallowance under section 14A was justified. 7. We do not find any merit in this submission. Judgment of this Court in Abhishek Industries (supra) 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 bus…

Arun Kumar Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 871/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR

Section 142Section 143Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.871/Del./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 Arun Kumar Gupta (HUF), vs. ACIT, Circle 39 (1) 2122, Bahadurgarh Road, New Delhi. Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : AAFHA4556G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rajeev Saxena, Advocate REVENUE by : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-XXVIII, New Delhi dated 09.01.2012 for th…

Majestic Hotels Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for Ay 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 6260/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C.M.Garg, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A Y: 2008-09

For Appellant: Rajeev Mango, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

…its commercial expendiency and CIT (A) also held that there was no commercial expediency ? 3. Whether the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the decision in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 in which the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the onus of establishing the nexus between the interest free funds and advances is on the assessee and receipts from all sources go in common kitty ?” 03. All the three grounds of appeal are against the deletion of interest disallowance amounting to Rs. 24,05,333/- by CIT (A) holding…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Q.H. Talbros Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1320/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. M/S Qh Talbros Ltd., Plot No. 400, Gurgaon Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaaco2191D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-2, Vs. M/S Qh Talbros Ltd., Plot No. 400, Gurgaon Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaaco2191D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A), Faridabad, Dated 27.12.2011 & 20.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Respectively. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1321/Del/2012:

For Appellant: Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, AR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 154Section 36(1)(iii)

…red on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.3,90,000/- on the investment made for non business purpose. The reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries (286 ITR 1) held that "the entire money in a business entity comes in a common kitty. The monies received as share capital, as term loans, as working capital loan, as sale proceeds etc., do not have any different colour of business receipts and have no separate identification. Sources have no concern whatsoever. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Qh Talbros Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1321/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, AR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 154Section 36(1)(iii)

Vikram Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5037/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri S M BandiFor Respondent: Shri G M Doss

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member ITA Nos.5037, 5035, 3897/Mum/2009, 729& 726/Mum/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2005-06, 2006-07 Shri Vikram Khandelwal, The Asst. CIT Cent. Cir. 33,old 601-A, Millenium Garden, CGO Building, M K Road, Vs. Upper Govind Nagar, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400 064 PAN AADPK9699N ("नधा"रती /Appellant) (राज"व / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S M Bandi राज"व क" ओर से / Res…

P.Sundararajan, Avanashi vs. DCIT, Tiruppur

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

ITA 1666/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1666/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…‘आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी ’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1666/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007) R. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner of No.39-A, Extension Street, Vs Income Tax, Kaikattipudur, Company Circle, Avinashi 641 654 Tirupur [PAN: AGQPS 1345A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respon…

Wonderla Holidays Ltd vs. CIT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 722/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Cherian Baby, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…and Haryana High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Winsome Textile Industries Ltd reported in (2009) 319 ITR 204 had observed as under: "7. We do not find any merit in this submission. The judgment 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…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Planet Online Pvt Ltd

ITTA/320/2013HC Telangana07 Aug 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax Hyd vs. Leafin India Ltd Hyd

ITTA/41/1999HC Telangana22 Nov 2011

Section 256(2)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57Section 80ASection 80M

…he Act. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court reported as Distributors (Baroda) P.Ltd. Vs. Union of India & others (1985) 155 ITR 120 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 respectively. On the other hand, Ms. Suri contended that Section 36 deals with permissible deductions in respect of profits from business or profession, whereas Section 57 deals with ‘income from other sources’. Since the income from dividend is income from other sources, therefore, the relevant provision is Section 57 of the Act and suc…

M/S Munjal Sales Corporation vs. Commr.of Income Tax, Ludhiana

C.A. No.-001378-001378 - 2008Supreme Court19 Feb 2008

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax,Ludhiana & Anr

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…High Court has upheld the disallowance of interest claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("1961 Act", for short), placing reliance on its judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. \026 (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). 3. In this batch of civil appeals we are concerned with Assessment Years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. FACTS : 4. In August/September 1991, appellant assessee granted interest free advances to its sister concerns which were disallowed by the Department on the ground that the said advances were not given from…