CIT v. RPG Transmissions Ltd.

48 Taxmann.com 57High Court2014#2056 most cited

What is CIT v. RPG Transmissions Ltd. authority for?

Interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) is deductible for borrowed funds invested for business purposes, even if the investment does not immediately generate income, provided there is a proximate nexus to the assessee's business.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

RPG Transmissions Ltd · CIT v RPG Transmissions · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest expenditure deduction · borrowed funds · business purpose · commercial expediency · investment in sister company · income not mandatory · proximate nexus

Also reported as

359 ITR 673

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 132Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

fresh tangible materialjdajoint development agreementwithin four yearsdisallowance of interest expenditurekelvinatorsection 144abusiness expediencysection 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencyput to uselive link

Judgments citing CIT v. RPG Transmissions Ltd.

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Nath Bio-Geners (I) Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 642/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal & Shri Vijay SabuFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 642/PUN/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3125/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

…d therefore, it cannot be disallowed at all. He Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 3125/Del/2016 and 2716/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) referred to three decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. RPG Transmissions Ltd 48 Taxmann.com 57, wherein, it has been held that interest on borrowed fund utilized for investment in group companies for strategic business purposes is an allowable deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act . He further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Malayam Plantation Ltd 53 ITR 140, SA Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 158 Taxmann…

M/S. Menora Developers & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2716/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

…d therefore, it cannot be disallowed at all. He Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 3125/Del/2016 and 2716/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) referred to three decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. RPG Transmissions Ltd 48 Taxmann.com 57, wherein, it has been held that interest on borrowed fund utilized for investment in group companies for strategic business purposes is an allowable deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act . He further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Malayam Plantation Ltd 53 ITR 140, SA Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 158 Taxmann…

ACIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tatva Global Enviornment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6958/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad (Jm) & Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 37

…pital for strategic business purposes in companies promoted as special purpose to strengthen and promote assessee’s existing business interest was allowable. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High court of Madras in the case of RPG Transmissions Ltd. in 359 ITR 673. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court (supra), in the light of identical facts of the case in hand, we do not find any reason for the disallowance of Rs. 1,10,83,572/-. We, accordingly, direct the AO to delete the same. Ground No. 2 is accordingly allowed.” 8. We therefore maintaining the consistency with the earlier or…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…9 (P&H). (i) Winsome Textiles Industries Vs. UOI: 278 ITR 470 (P&H). (j) Fenner India Ltd. v. DCIT: 241 ITR 672 (Mad.). (k) EL Forge Ltd. vs. DCIT: 224 Taxman 222 (Mad.). (l) Doshi Housing Ltd. v. ACIT: 211 Taxman 46 (Mad.). (m) RPG Transmissions Ltd. v. CIT: 359 ITR 673 (Mad.). (n) CIT v. A.R. Enterprises: 255 ITR 121 (Raj.). 13 Babu Lal Jug Raj & Co. vs. ITO: 289 ITR 115 (Raj.). (p) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT : 287 ITR 494 (Bom.). (q) Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. v. JCIT: 312 ITR 70 (Guj.). 15. He submitted that in the instant case the reassessment has been made on the basis of change of opinion. Referring t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lodhi Property Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4970/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charylodhi Property Company Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Authorized Representative Sr Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N & Dcit Vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/O Authorized Representative Sr Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 35Section 36Section 37(1)

…ITA Nos. 4851 & 4970/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Lodhi Property Company Ltd. vs DCIT C/o Authorized Representative SR Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. AABCH0299N & DCIT vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/o Authorized Representative SR Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. AABCH0299N Assessee by Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Revenue by Sh. Ra…

Lodhi Property Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4851/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charylodhi Property Company Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Authorized Representative Sr Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N & Dcit Vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/O Authorized Representative Sr Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 35Section 36Section 37(1)

…ITA Nos. 4851 & 4970/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Lodhi Property Company Ltd. vs DCIT C/o Authorized Representative SR Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. AABCH0299N & DCIT vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/o Authorized Representative SR Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. AABCH0299N Assessee by Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Revenue by Sh. Ra…

ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Tamilnadu Sugar Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2055/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…s. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee had surplus funds to advance interest free loan to its subsidiary for commercial expediency. Otherwise also, by relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. RPG Transmissions Ltd. 359 ITR 673 (Mad), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that interest on borrowed capital is an allowable deduction if the investments are made for strategic business purposes. The assessee has advanced an interest free loan of ₹.22,11,931/- to M/s. Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd., who is engaged in manufacture of sugar. The interest free loan was advance…

ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Tamilnadu Sugar Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2054/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…s. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee had surplus funds to advance interest free loan to its subsidiary for commercial expediency. Otherwise also, by relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. RPG Transmissions Ltd. 359 ITR 673 (Mad), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that interest on borrowed capital is an allowable deduction if the investments are made for strategic business purposes. The assessee has advanced an interest free loan of ₹.22,11,931/- to M/s. Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd., who is engaged in manufacture of sugar. The interest free loan was advance…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Trivitron Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 462/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.462/Mds/2016 "नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…t was purely for the purpose of business of the appellant. In this regard, the AR relied on the ratio prescribed by the Apex Court in the case S.A. BUILDERS LTD (288 ITR 1) and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs RPG Transmissions Ltd (359 ITR 673-MDS) wherein it is held that interest :- 9 -: paid on borrowings that were used to acquire shares of group company, which is engaged in Power Generation and Distribution, is an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(iii) in as much as both businesses have great nexus and the investment was not made with an intention to earn dividend income .I…

Future Ideas Co Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3062/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Ideas Co. Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Vs. Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf9519L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…under section 36(i)(iii) of the Act. In support of this contention, reliance was, inter alia, placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Spencers & Co. Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 644 (Mad) and CIT vs. RPG Transmission Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 673 (Mad). 4.2.7 The learned A.R. of the assessee further contended that without prejudice to the above submissions, no revision is permissible under section 263 of the Act, if the AO adopts one of the possible methods/ courses of action/conclusions permissible in law. The mere fact that the CIT is not in agreement with the view taken/conclusion reac…

Future Corporate Resources Ltd.(Formerly Known As Simpleton Investrade Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3061/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Corporate Resources Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 (Formerly Simpleton Investrade P. Ltd.) 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aajcs3979E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…under section 36(i)(iii) of the Act. In support of this contention, reliance was, inter alia, placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Spencers & Co. Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 644 (Mad) and CIT vs. RPG Transmission Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 673 (Mad). 4.2.7 The learned A.R. of the assessee further contended that without prejudice to the above submissions, no revision is permissible under section 263 of the Act, if the AO adopts one of the possible methods/ courses of action/conclusions permissible in law. The mere fact that the CIT is not in agreement with the view taken/conclusion reac…

M/S Divakar Solar System Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…ilders Ltd case supra , the interest expenses incurred by the assessee should be allowed as deduction. Apart from this, the assessee also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs RPG Transmissions Ltd reported in 359 ITR 673 (Mad) ; CIT vs Spencers and Co. Ltd (No. 3) reported in 359 ITR 644 (Mad) and CIT vs Spencers and Co. Ltd (No. 2) reported in 359 ITR 630 (Mad). The assessee also drew the attention of Clause 17 of the Memorandum of Association of the subsidiary company M/s Confident Solar Pvt Ltd which is reproduced below:- “17. To establish, or concur in establ…

ITO, Ward-32(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Raghunath Exporters, Kolkata

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

ITA 2166/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)

…pose of controlling interest. The appellant is having its own capital of Rs.6.11 crores and the aggregate advances made is Rs.1.75 crores and the entire amount is from appellants own capital. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. RPG Transmissions Ltd. 359 ITR 673 (Mad.) has held that investments made in shares by the assessee, even if it was out of borrowed funds, were for the purpose of controlling interest of the assessee, the interest was allowable u/s 36(1 )(iii) of the Act. Similar view has been decided by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajiv Lochan Kanoria 208 ITR 616 (Cal.)”. 12. I…

Godrej & Boyce Mfg, Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

ITA 1402/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh. Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./ Ita/1402/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. Acit-10(2) Pirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai--400 079. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacg 1395 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Amrita Misra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Josh & Ms. Sonalee Godbole(Ar) सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.04.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 18.10.2010,Of The Cit(A)-21,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal,Raising Five Grounds Of Appeal.The First Three Grounds Deal With Re-Opening Of The Assessment & The Other Two Grounds Are About Addition Made U/S.14 A & Computation Of Income U/S.115Jb Of The Act Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh & Ms. Sonalee Godbole(AR)For Respondent: Ms. Amrita Misra (DR)
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण,"जी जी” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण जी जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“G”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh. Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ ITA/1402/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. ACIT-10(2) Pirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai--400 079. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACG 1395 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Ms. A…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Spencer and Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being

ITA 2610/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT, IRSFor Respondent: Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 143(2)

…nding circumstances then that will not involve any substanstive question of law. In our judgement in the tax appeals in T.C. (A) Nos. 310 to 312 of 2007 and T.C (A) Nos.1388 to I.T.A.No.2610/Mds/2014 :- 5 -: . 1390 of 2007 (CIT v. RPG Tranmissions Ltd [2013] 359 ITR 673 (Mad) (infra), which was herd along with this appeal and disposed of today, we have held that a transaction or an arrangement which is perfectly permissible and which may have the effect of reduction of tax burden need not be seen with tainted disfavour. In this appeal also we do not find any reason on the facts and circumstances of the matter to…