CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd.

331 ITR 502High Court2011#1271 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. authority for?

Interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii) for interest-free advances made to subsidiaries or group companies if the advances are from owned funds or are justified by commercial expediency.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. · 331 ITR 502 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest disallowance · interest-free advances · commercial expediency · owned funds · borrowed funds · business purpose · proportionate interest expenditure

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd.

M/S. Xs Real Properties Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 42/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 41 & 42/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Xs Real Properties P. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 12, South Mada Street, Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai 600 015. [Pan:Aaacx0030G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Both Dated 28.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…essment years and the entire interest expenditure on borrowing fund was incurred in connection with the operating revenue which had been offered to tax, no disallowance is required to be made under section 14A of the Act [CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 418 (Guj), etc.]. 7.3 In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer cannot make disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D in any count. Accordingly, we direct the Asse…

M/S. Xs Real Properties Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 41/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 41 & 42/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Xs Real Properties P. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 12, South Mada Street, Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai 600 015. [Pan:Aaacx0030G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Both Dated 28.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…essment years and the entire interest expenditure on borrowing fund was incurred in connection with the operating revenue which had been offered to tax, no disallowance is required to be made under section 14A of the Act [CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 418 (Guj), etc.]. 7.3 In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer cannot make disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D in any count. Accordingly, we direct the Asse…

Kollur Sreenivasan Kamalakannan, Dindigul vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4(4), Chennai

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

ITA 84/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.84/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kollur Sreenivasan Kamalakannan, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. No. 1, Anna Pillai Street, Corporate Ward 4 (4), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpk5960F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. & Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…essment years and the entire interest expenditure on borrowing fund was incurred in connection with the operating revenue which had been offered to tax, no disallowance is required to be made under section 14A of the Act [CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 418 (Guj), etc.]. Thus, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify as to whether the assessee was having sufficient own funds on the date of investments and if…

M/S. Harita Seating Systems Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 2745/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2745/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Harita Seating Systems Limited, No. 29, Jayalakshmi Income Tax, Estates, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaach2492N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2020

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234A

…essment years and the entire interest expenditure on borrowing fund was incurred in connection with the operating revenue which had been offered to tax, no disallowance is required to be made under section 14A of the Act [CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 418(Guj), :- 4 -: ITA No.2745/Chny/19 etc.]. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the financial status of the assessee having sufficient own funds to make investments in subsidiary. We…

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

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…icular expenditure. So long as the expenditure incurred is for business purposes, the same is allowable as business deduction in view of the following High Court decisions: " CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del.) " CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del.) " D & H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: 149 ITR 400 (MP). 142. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the AO has disallowed Rs 61,65,830/- out of Foreign travel expenses mainly on the ground that the purpose of the related travel was not fur…

Gvk Power & Infrastructure Limited, Kadiyam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.553/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Gvk Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-48, Gvk Power Plant Income Tax Jegurupadu, Kadiyammandal Circle-2(1) East Godavari Rajamahendravaram [Pan :Aaacj5599A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओ रसे/ Appellant By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 5

…he subsidiaries was driven by commercial expediency. In support of this view the Tribunal relied upon the following judgments : (1) SA Builders v. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) (2) CIT V. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. : 254 ITR 37 (Del.) (3) CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd. : 331 ITR 502 (Del.) 4. Under section 36(1)(iii) the following conditions are required to be satisfied before the assessee can successfully claim deduction in respect of interest paid : (a) The assessee should have borrowed capital; (b) The borrowing of the capital should be for the purpose of the business and (c) Interest should have been paid on the borrowin…