CIT v. Pankaj Munjal Family Trust

326 ITR 286High Court2010#12668 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act Section 263 of the Income-tax Act Section 36(1) of the Income-tax Act Section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act

Judgments citing CIT v. Pankaj Munjal Family Trust

SHRI JAGDISHBHAI GORDHANBHAI DOABARIYA ,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 142/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.142/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jagdishbhai Gordhanbhai Dobariya The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम “Ramdev”2, Jivnath Park,B/H. Panchvati Aayakar Bhavan, Race Hall,Panchvati Main Road,Nr.Gandhi Vs. Course Ring Road, School,Rajkot 360 001 Rajkot. Pan : Abrpd8654R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…mean that s. 57(iii) should be given a narrow and constricted meaning not warranted by the language of the section and, in fact, contrary to such language.” 17. Similarly, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Pankaj Munjal Family Trust 326 ITR 286 (P&H) has held as under: “12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order, we do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue; and, in our opinion, no substantial question of law is arising from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. In the present case, undisput…

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

ITA 325/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

…of Rs. 41,467/- and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee.” I.T.A. Nos. 323 to 325/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2015-16 6 ii)High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case ofCommissioner of Income- taxv.Pankaj Munjal Family Trust[2010] 326 ITR 286 (Punjab & Haryana); “Held:- Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital - Assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1986-87 and 1988-89 - Where assessee-trust had taken a loan at 16 per cent from family concerns which was utilized by it for purchase of 4 per cent non-cumulative preference shares, merely because assessee…

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

ITA 324/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH MEEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 57

…In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody, 115 ITR 519 (SC) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Pankaj Munjal Family Trust, 326 ITR 286 (P&H) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as a result of the expenditure. The only requirement for allowing the deduction under section 57(iii) is that the expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earnin…

SHRI KAILASH CHAND SONI C/O- S.L. PODDAR & COMPANY E-3A, KANTI CHANDRA RAOD, BANI PARK, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 960/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Singh (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 57

…be disallowed. 6 Shri Kailash Chand Soni, Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Jaipur • In another case ofDelhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 337 (Del) • In another case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. PankajMunjal Family Trust reported in 326 ITR 286, • The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B. V. V/s. Union of India &Anr. reported in 341 ITR 1 (SC) • Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajendra Prasad Moody, (1978) 115 ITR 519. 3. The expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for earning such interes…

STOCK TRADERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 726/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhstock Traders Pvt. Ltd. Ito - 2(3)(2) 63, Sonawala Chs, Bombay Aayakar Bhavan, Samachar Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-40020. Pan: Aafcs0567G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Lalan (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepari (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd. ITO - 2(3)(2) 63, Sonawala CHS, Bombay Aayakar Bhavan, Samachar Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-40020. PAN: AAFCS0567G Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Sanjeev Lalan (AR) Respondent by : Shri S.K. Bepari (DR) Date of Hearing : 03.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 10.10.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee under Section 253 of Income-tax Act is directe…

MEWA SINGH BOLA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ADIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ITA Nos. 527/JP/2013 and 541/JP/2013 are allowed

ITA 527/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 148Section 149(3)

…the contrary, the appellant had declared higher rate of interest. Under these circumstances, the disallowance of interest by the AO was without analyzing the proper facts and seems to have been made in haste. In the case of CIT Vs Pankaj Munjal family trust (326 ITR 286), the assessee was a family trust. For the assessment year 1983- 84, the Assessing Officer accepted the income returned by the assessee. The Commissioner exercising the power under section 263 of the Income-tax Act called for the record and noticed that the assessee had taken a loan Rs 1,75,000 at 16 percent from family concerns which was utilize…

NANDKISHOR & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm in ITA N0

ITA 8644/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8644/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Nandkishore & Co., Acit 4(2), बनाम/ Unit No. 208/209, 6 Th Floor, V. Wadala Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Next To Wadala Telephone M.K. Road, Exchange, Mumbai- 400020. Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 031. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafn5385K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh(D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 94(7)

…assessee-firm borrowed funds @ 12% p.a. interest and deployed the funds at 6 to 9% p.a. interest to its sister concerns. The assessee-firm relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Pankaj Munjal Family Trust, (2010) 326 ITR 286(P&H HC) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC). The learned counsel submitted that any prudent businessman who is already shouldering higher interest rate on borrowed funds would like to minimize interest loss. The Tribunal although confirmed the additions in ITA no. 424/Mum/2009 vi…