CIT v. Hotel Savera

239 ITR 795High Court1999#888 most cited

What is CIT v. Hotel Savera authority for?

When an assessee has sufficient interest-free own funds available to make interest-free advances or investments, it is presumed that such advances or investments are made from these interest-free funds, thereby preventing the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii).

119

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hotel Savera · Hotel Savera · Section 36(1)(iii) · disallowance of interest expenditure · interest-free advances · own funds · mixed fund theory · commercial expediency · presumption of funds utilization · sufficiency of interest-free funds

Also reported as

102 Taxmann 247

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 127Section 132Section 132A

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(ii)section 36(1)(iii)interest free advancessection 28(iv)weighted deductioncommercial expediencysection 35(2ab)business connectiondisallowance of interest expenditureicdssection 9(1)(vii)section 36(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hotel Savera

ACIT Ltu 2 Chennai, Chennai vs. Wheels India Limited, Chennai

ITA 2701/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2701/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2702/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit M/S. Wheels India Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Large Taxpayer Unit-2 21, Pattulos Road, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw-0315-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2771/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2772/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Wheels India Pvt.Ltd. Acit बनाम 21, Pattulos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit-2 / Vs. Chennai-600 002. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw-0315-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure of Rs.3.83 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii), though the appellant has sufficient funds for making the investments. 4.3 The Appellant relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court In CIT Vs. Hotel Savera 239 ITR 195 and Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Gujarat State Fertilizers a Chemicals Ltd 85 CCH 273 Guj HC and HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) where it was held that no ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A was warranted where the assessee had sufficient funds available with it, which was more than the amount it invested for earning dividend i…

DCIT, C-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…ITR 370 (All) 33 - CIT v. United Collieries Ltd. : 49 Taxman 227 (Cal) - CIT v. Enamour Investment Ltd.: 72 Taxman 370 (Cal) - CIT v. Caroline Investment Ltd.: 87 Taxman 238 (Cal) - CIT v. Kanoria Investment (P) Ltd.: 232 ITR 7 (Cal) - CIT vs. Hotel Savera: 239 ITR 795 (Mad) - Smt. Chanchal Katyal v. CIT: 298 ITR 182 (All.) - CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom) - CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.: 284 CTR 414 (Bom.) - Hero Honda Finlease Ltd vs. ACIT: ITA No. 3726 & 6102/Del/2012 (Del) Reliance is also placed on the following cases, wherein, the Courts have repeatedly held that interest expenditure…

Guardian Nutrition & Health Supplements Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6738/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Guardian Nutrition & Health Supplements Vs DCIT, Circle 10(2), Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. A-258, Phase-I, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020. PAN:AACCG2848K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.11.2022 Date of pronouncement 21.11.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commiss…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 536, 537, 538 & 539/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US v. DCIT – Central Circle- 6(4) C/o. Karnavat & Co. Air India Building, Nariman Point 2A Kitab Mahal, 1st Floor Mumbai – 400 021 192 Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai -400001 PAN: AAAFD4507H (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT – Central Circle – 6(2) v. M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US Room No. 1903, 19th Floor 1110, Prasad Chambers Air India Building, Nariman Point Opera House Mumbai –…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 538/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 536, 537, 538 & 539/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US v. DCIT – Central Circle- 6(4) C/o. Karnavat & Co. Air India Building, Nariman Point 2A Kitab Mahal, 1st Floor Mumbai – 400 021 192 Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai -400001 PAN: AAAFD4507H (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT – Central Circle – 6(2) v. M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US Room No. 1903, 19th Floor 1110, Prasad Chambers Air India Building, Nariman Point Opera House Mumbai –…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 537/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 536, 537, 538 & 539/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US v. DCIT – Central Circle- 6(4) C/o. Karnavat & Co. Air India Building, Nariman Point 2A Kitab Mahal, 1st Floor Mumbai – 400 021 192 Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai -400001 PAN: AAAFD4507H (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT – Central Circle – 6(2) v. M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US Room No. 1903, 19th Floor 1110, Prasad Chambers Air India Building, Nariman Point Opera House Mumbai –…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 536, 537, 538 & 539/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US v. DCIT – Central Circle- 6(4) C/o. Karnavat & Co. Air India Building, Nariman Point 2A Kitab Mahal, 1st Floor Mumbai – 400 021 192 Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai -400001 PAN: AAAFD4507H (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT – Central Circle – 6(2) v. M/s. Diamonds ‘R' US Room No. 1903, 19th Floor 1110, Prasad Chambers Air India Building, Nariman Point Opera House Mumbai –…

Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. Anand Keshav Shejwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5516/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthy: A.Y : 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Anand Keshav Shejwal Tax-18(1), Mumbai. (Appellant) 33/35, Ground Floor, Matru Vatsalya, 2Nd Fofal Wadi, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai 400 002. Pan : Aaatc7307E (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul JainFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs. Anand Keshav Shejwal Tax-18(1), Mumbai. (Appellant) 33/35, Ground floor, Matru Vatsalya, 2nd Fofal Wadi, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai 400 002. PAN : AAATC7307E (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Jain Respondent by : Shri Vipul Joshi Date of Hearing : 17/06/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 O R D E R This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai (in short ‘the CIT(A)’…

Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & Research Centre (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3416/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3416/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S.Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & V. The Asst. Commissioner- Research Centre P. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.20, G.N.Chetty Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaccb 2146 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjunraj, CA for Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Chinthapalli Mehar Chand
Section 143(3)Section 40

…umption was established considering the findings of fact, both by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.” 5. Similar principle was considered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Hotel Savera reported in [1999] 239 ITR 795 (Madras), wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court has considered the identical issue vide paragraphs no.8 & 9, as under: “8. Further, there is no finding by the ITO or the AAC that the money borrowed has been spent for non-business purposes. The addition made by the ITO was on the basis that the money advanced to Savera Hotels (P) Limited should c…

N.S.Rama Rao Body Works, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 825/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 825/CHNY/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2014-15 M/s. N.S. Rama Rao Body Works, The ACIT, No.47-A, Naidu Street, Kottur v. Non-Corporate Circle -1(1), Garden, Kotturpuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 085. PAN: AAAFN 2000M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3438/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…furnished by the assessee before lower authorities and the ratio of various judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s S.A.Builders (288 ITR 1), the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities (313 ITR 340) was applicable to the assessee’s case. The Ld. AR also submitted that the test of commercial expediency was duly satisfied by the assessee which has already been elaborated by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 8. Having heard rival submissions and after due…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3437/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…furnished by the assessee before lower authorities and the ratio of various judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s S.A.Builders (288 ITR 1), the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities (313 ITR 340) was applicable to the assessee’s case. The Ld. AR also submitted that the test of commercial expediency was duly satisfied by the assessee which has already been elaborated by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 8. Having heard rival submissions and after due…

Indonet Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 903/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:903/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009 - 2010

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjunraj, C.A. for S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ption was established considering the findings of fact, both by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.” 5. Similar principle was considered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Hotel Savera reported in [1999] 239 ITR 795 (Madras), wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court has considered the identical issue vide paragraphs no.8 & 9, as under: “8. Further, there is no finding by the ITO or the AAC that the money borrowed has been spent for non-business purposes. The addition made by the ITO was on the basis that the money advanced to Savera Hotels (P) Limited :: 5…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (2), Chennai vs. Iss Sdb Security Services Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3536/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri MP Lohia (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…7 & 3536/Chny/2018 be deleted on the presumption that investments were out of own funds as per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (89CCH 185) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795). Aggrieved the revenue is in further appeal before us. At the outset, so far as the exclusion of strategic investment is concerned, the directions of Ld. CIT(A) stand reversed in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154). At the same time, no infirmity could be found…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Iss Sdb Security Services Pvt. Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2707/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri MP Lohia (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…7 & 3536/Chny/2018 be deleted on the presumption that investments were out of own funds as per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (89CCH 185) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795). Aggrieved the revenue is in further appeal before us. At the outset, so far as the exclusion of strategic investment is concerned, the directions of Ld. CIT(A) stand reversed in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited V/s CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154). At the same time, no infirmity could be found…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 967/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) as well as another decision of same court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). The ratio of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) is also applicable to the facts of the case wherein it was held that in case own funds and borrowed funds were inextricably mixed up in such a way that it was impossible to delineate which funds were advanced to group concern, no interference could be made in the Tribunal’s finding that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) would be called for. 20. It…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) as well as another decision of same court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). The ratio of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) is also applicable to the facts of the case wherein it was held that in case own funds and borrowed funds were inextricably mixed up in such a way that it was impossible to delineate which funds were advanced to group concern, no interference could be made in the Tribunal’s finding that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) would be called for. 20. It…

ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1883/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) as well as another decision of same court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). The ratio of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) is also applicable to the facts of the case wherein it was held that in case own funds and borrowed funds were inextricably mixed up in such a way that it was impossible to delineate which funds were advanced to group concern, no interference could be made in the Tribunal’s finding that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) would be called for. 20. It…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1846/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) as well as another decision of same court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). The ratio of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) is also applicable to the facts of the case wherein it was held that in case own funds and borrowed funds were inextricably mixed up in such a way that it was impossible to delineate which funds were advanced to group concern, no interference could be made in the Tribunal’s finding that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) would be called for. 20. It…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1272/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) as well as another decision of same court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). The ratio of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) is also applicable to the facts of the case wherein it was held that in case own funds and borrowed funds were inextricably mixed up in such a way that it was impossible to delineate which funds were advanced to group concern, no interference could be made in the Tribunal’s finding that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) would be called for. 20. It…