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.

The Dy CIT, Central Cir.-6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Ground no

ITA 1925/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 1925/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Arshiya Limited DCIT, CC-6(4) Room No. 1925 302, Level-3,C.J. House 19th Floor Shiv Sagar Estate Air India Building F-Block, Worli Nariman Point Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 018. PAN : AAACI2679A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Piyush Chhajed Department by Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date of Hearing 25.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The Revenue has filed this…

Raghu Rama Renewable Energy Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 444/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 444/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Raghu Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer Renewable Energy Ltd, Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccr0908F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raj Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.7.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Not Condoning The Delay Of 549 Days In Filing Of The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,54,32,624/-

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri N. Raj Kumar, DR

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…against its borrowing through its cash credit bank account held with UCO Bank. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H) and various other decisions, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.14,16,045/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 5.1 Similarly, the Assessing Officer on perusal of the P&L Account observed that the assessee had shown less inventory of closing stock as on 31.3.2018 as compared to its opening value by an amount of Rs.2,40,16,579/-. The Asses…

ITO, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar vs. M/S Jamna Auto Industries Ltd., Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 690/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT- DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…hat the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is not legally sustainable in the wake of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. Abhishek Industries Limited’, reported as [2006] 286 ITR 1(P&H). 7. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 8. Heard. The question is as to whether as contended on behalf of the Department, the ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has followed…

ITO, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar vs. M/S Jamna Auto Industries Ltd., Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 689/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT- DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

Uniliver Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1755/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T (Tp) A. No.1755/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Unilever Industries Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Range-1(3)(2) Unilever House, B. D. Mumbai. Vs. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400099. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0791P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishant Thakkar/Ms Jasmin Amalsadwala Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 10.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar/Ms JasminFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…f Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT v Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 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…

M/S. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 700/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri. C. R. Krishna and Sachin Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

…purpose. Hence the same cannot be allowed. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions. 1. Bombay High Court -240 ITR 762 Hindustan Conductors P. Ltd. 2. Madras High Court -238 ITR 939 K. Somasundaram & Bros. 3. Punjab & Haryana High Court — 286 ITR 1 Abhishek Industries Ltd. 4.4 In view of the above facts, and considering the amount of interest charged to Profit and Loss account as borrowing cost, the average rate of interest @ 12% annum is considered as reasonable for disallowance and accordingly, an amount of Rs.40,21,980/- being interest @ 12% on interest free loans/advances of Rs. 3,45,51,0…

M/S. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri. C. R. Krishna and Sachin Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi vs. V C Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. P. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1884/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ACIT, Vs V C Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Circle-26(1), 85, GF, World Trade Centre, New Delhi-110002 Barakhamba Lane, Central Delhi, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCV4416B CO No. 41/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 V C Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, 301-A, World Trade Centre, Central Circle-15, Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCV4416B Assessee by :…

Acc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…e judgments in the cases of Tamilnadu Sugar Corporation Ltd Vs CIT [(2001) 251 ITR 843 (Mad)], CIT Vs Rajaram Maize Products [(2001) 251 ITR 427 (SC)], CIT Vs S Kumars Tyre Manufacturing Co [(2004) 266 ITR 325 (MP)], and CIT Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd [(2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H)]. The entire amount of Rs 1169.93 crores was added to income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) took note of the fact that these amounts pertained to five different units under four schemes- namely Maharshtra’s Dispersal of Industries Package Scheme of Incentives 1993 (Maratha U…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai-400005 vs. M/S. Acc Limited, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 1171/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 14A

Mascot Footcare Faridabad Thrg Its Partner Gunjan Lakhani vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Faridabad (Haryana)

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/192/2012HC Punjab & Haryana12 May 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 260Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…balances in the capital accounts of two partners namely Suman Lakhani and Kamlesh Lakhani aggregating to Rs.21,41,072/-as on 31.03.2006 relying upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The Assessing Officer had observed that the withdrawals by the partners were out of the sale proceeds received by the assessee concern and not out of the borrowings of the assessee concern. A perusal of the bank account showed that the payments by the assessee concern to the partners were out of the CC account where the balance was…

All Grow Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1072/DEL/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usall Grow Finance & Vs. Dcit Investment Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 10(1) Shop No.118, Tikona Park New Delhi New Delhi-110 020 Pan No. Aaaca 4941 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2023

Section 143(3)

…purpose of business and it is having substantial Interest free funds out of which that interest free advances were given. It is held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd. Vs CIT [2006] 156 Taxman 257 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2006] 286 ITR 1 (Punjab & Haryana)/[20061 205 CTR 304 (Punjab & Haryana) that "once it is borne out from record that assessee had borrowed certain funds on which liability to pay tax is being incurred and on other hand, certain amounts had been advanced to sister concerns or others without carrying any Interest and without any business purposes, interest to extent…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3178/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12