CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

343 ITR 161High Court2012#5344 most cited

What is CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan authority for?

Interest expenditure is allocable to a unit based on the actual utilization of borrowed funds, not on an ad-hoc basis without establishing a nexus.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan · CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. · section 14A · rule 8D · interest expenditure · allocation of interest cost · actual utilization of borrowed funds · nexus with eligible unit

Also reported as

33 Taxmann.com 535

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961 - Sections 14ASection 1962 - Rule 8DSection 22Section 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 23(5)Section 80-IA(5)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

assistant commissionerprevious yearsection 143(2)section 148transfercompanysection 14section 143(3)indiaprescribedtotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1320/CHNY/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325 & 1326/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004- 05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Balance Sheet Management Income Tax, Department, Large Tax Payer Unit, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 002. [PAN AAACI 1223] (अपीलाथ…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263

…. The learned DR from the department had also argued before Tribunal that the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry and that revenue. The learned DR had relied upon following decisions:- i. CIT v Infosys Technologies 341 ITR 293 ii. CIT v Hindustan Lever 343 ITR 161 iii. Frick India Ltd. v DCIT 6 ITR 82 iv. Major Metals Ltd. v Union of India 359 ITR 450 v. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v CIT 243 ITR 83 vi. South India Steel Rolling Mills v CIT 224 ITR 654 34. After considering the arguments and submissions of both sides, the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for lA.Y.2009-2010, held as under :- “8.We have consid…