CIT v. Jardine Hendartors (Cal.)

SETO TEKNOLOG P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(2)(4), MUMBAI

…siness and the interest paid thereon is not allowable either in the section 36(1)(iii) or section 37 of the Act. In so far as the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee is concerned, in the case of CIT Vs. Jardine Henderson Ltd., [1994] 210 ITR 981 the Court has held as under:- “It was categorical finding of the Tribunal that the borrowal for the purchase of shares was for the managing agency business of the assessee and to retain its grip over the managing agency business. The tribunal also found that the investment in shares was principally and primarily with a view to obtain the managing…

GUJARAT GLASS P. LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS GUJARAT GLASS P. LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aabcg0093R V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 03.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

…erest paid is allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(iii). In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Phil Corporation, 244 CTR 226 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Shrishti Securities, 321 ITR 498 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Jardine Enderson Ltd., 210 ITR 981 (Cal.); and iv) Pistabai Rikhabhchand Kothari v/s ITO, 30 taxmann.com 346. 16. Further, learned Authorised Representative submitted, since the investment in shares is in a company which is in a similar line of business, the investment made is for commercial expediency, hence, no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made. For such proposit…

M/S. GUJARAT GLASS LTD. vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 6(3),

In the result, appeals are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

…of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Phil Corporation Ltd., 244 CTR 266, Pstabai Rikhabchand Kothar, 30 taxmann.com 346, Shristi Securities, 321 ITR 498 and decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Jardine Henderson Ltd., 210 ITR 981, the assessee is entitled for claim of interest on the funds acquired for controlling interest. We also found that investment was made in the share of company with a similar line of business and for commercial expediency, therefore, no disallowance was warranted u/s.36(1)(iii), in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.B…