CIT v. Hindustan Conductors Pvt. Ltd.

240 ITR 762High Court1999#17338 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Conductors Pvt. Ltd.

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)

…r its business are being diverted by the assessee company to advance the interest free loans to its sister concerns for non-business 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…

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)

Rajendra B. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 17(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4125/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R

Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rajendra B. Mehta, ACIT, Circle 17(3), 12, C.L. Shah Family Aayakar Bhavan, Trust, M.K. Road, Behind Sant Tukaram Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mandir, Carnac Siding Road, Mumbai – 400 009 PAN: AAHPM0155B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Dr. Daniel, A.R. Revenue by : Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R. Date of Hearing : 20.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Jivraj Tea Company, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2343/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2343/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Jivraj Tea Company, Of Income Tax, 5/258-259, Jivraj Chambers, Circle – 2(3), Surat. Ruwala Tekra, Bhagal, Surat. [Pan: Aacfj 2236 R] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Prasoon Kabra – Cit-Dr

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80I

…of year was Rs. 7.78 crores and impugned interest was paid on the outstanding amount of purchases due to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Conductors Pvt. Ltd. reported in 240 ITR 762 (Bom.), wherein it has been held that ‘interest’ is the return or compensation for the retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another. The essence of interest is that it is a payment which becomes due because the creditor has not had his money at the due date. The basis purchase of making payment of interest is entitlem…

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)

…ted to that own money borrowed and not on debt incurred. What is allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) is any sum paid by way of interest in the commercial sense. There cannot be strait jacket formula as was held in CIT vs Hindustan Condutors Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 240 ITR 762, 768-69, 770 (Bom.) and CIT vs Sarswati Chemical and allied Industries Pvt. ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 235, 238 (Del.). For allowance of claim for deduction of interest, under these provision, all that is necessary is that, firstly, the money, that is capital, must have been borrowed by the assessee, secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose…