CIT v. Tin Box Company

260 ITR 637High Court2003#1417 most cited

What is CIT v. Tin Box Company authority for?

When an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that any interest-free advances or investments made are from these funds, preventing disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). This principle applies if own capital and interest-free loans exceed the interest-free advances given.

80

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Tin Box Company · 260 ITR 637 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest free advances · disallowance of interest · borrowed capital · presumption of own funds · commercial expediency · mixed funds · availability of interest-free capital · Section 14A disallowance · Delhi High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 143(1)Section 264Section 56(2)(viib)Section 142(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

Issues it is cited on

nav methodinterest free advancesdcf methodsection 288section 36(1)(iii)accumulated profitssection 56(2)(viib)valuation of sharescommercial expediencysection 264section 33advance tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Tin Box Company

DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6872/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 40

…o interest has been paid, no disallowance can be made by invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without establishing the nexus between the payment of interest and loan advanced. a) ITA No. 1231 with CM 16759/2009 dated 02.12.2009 CIT vs. Jet Air Pvt. Ltd. b) 260 ITR 637 (Dei) CIT vs. Tin Box Co. c) 177 Taxman 300 (Del) CIT vs. DCM Ltd. d) 184 Taxman 352 (Del) CIT vs. H.B. Stock Holdings Ltd. e) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. f) 29 SOT 531 (Mum) Metro Exports Ltd. vs. ITO g) 20 SOT 47 (Mum) Tata Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT h) 194 CTR 451 (All) CIT vs. RadicoKhaitan Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) held…

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

…extended as interest free/ less interest bearing loan to third parties.) (ii) There are several decisions like Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340/1 78 Taxman 135 (Bom.), Hotel Savera [1999] 239 ITR 795/102 Taxman 247 (Mad), Tin Box Co. [2003] 260 ITR 637/[2004] 135 Taxman 145 (Delhi)) in support of the conclusion that when the assessee possesses mixed funds which include its own funds in sufficient quantity, a presumption that its own funds were utilized for the advances is to be drawn. (g) However, it is also well accepted a view that while computing disallowance the availability of non interest…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. M/S. Associated Blenders Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2922/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2922/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

…on, the Hon’ble High Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC). Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Dehi High Court in CIT vs. Tin Box Company (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del), holding that when the capital and interest free unsecured loan with the assessee far exceeded the interest free loan advanced to the sister concern, disallowance of part of interest out of total interest paid by the assessee to the bank was not justified. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT(LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.…

Addl . CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Gaursons Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2662/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…t view for three years in question, particularly, without any conclusion that, in fact, general reserves, surpluses and other funds were not available. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Tin Box Co. (2003) 260 ITR 637, wherein it was held that the finding of the Tribunal that the Department had not been able to controvert or disprove the fact that the assessee had substantial capital and interest-free funds available with it, not only in the preceding years but also in the years under consideration, which far exceeded the interest-free advances to the sister c…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genesis Colors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3731/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 40aSection 80G

…In support of this, Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S A Builders Vs. CIT (288) ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tin Box Company 260 ITR 637. He submitted that since the advance outstanding i.e. Rs.5 crore, no disallowances of interest on the presumption that the interest bearing funds have been utilized, can be made. He submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, addition made by the Assessing Officer, deserves to be deleted. 16. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR…

M/S Genesis Color Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3472/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 40aSection 80G

…In support of this, Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S A Builders Vs. CIT (288) ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tin Box Company 260 ITR 637. He submitted that since the advance outstanding i.e. Rs.5 crore, no disallowances of interest on the presumption that the interest bearing funds have been utilized, can be made. He submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, addition made by the Assessing Officer, deserves to be deleted. 16. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR…

M/S Genesis Color Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3471/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 40aSection 80G

…In support of this, Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S A Builders Vs. CIT (288) ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tin Box Company 260 ITR 637. He submitted that since the advance outstanding i.e. Rs.5 crore, no disallowances of interest on the presumption that the interest bearing funds have been utilized, can be made. He submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, addition made by the Assessing Officer, deserves to be deleted. 16. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR…

Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 345/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.302/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 PAN : AAACA4074D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.345/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Atlas Copco (India) Limited, DCIT, Circle-8, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Vs. Pune Pune – 411 012 PAN : AAACA4074D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R. Muralidhar Revenue by Shr…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 302/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.302/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 PAN : AAACA4074D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.345/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Atlas Copco (India) Limited, DCIT, Circle-8, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Vs. Pune Pune – 411 012 PAN : AAACA4074D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R. Muralidhar Revenue by Shr…

Deccan Mechanical & Chemical Industires Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1663/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Deccan Mechanical & Chemical Vs. Dcit, Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8, Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Pune Alankar Cinema Building, Ist Floor, Above United Bank, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaacd7365G Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…on, the Hon’ble High Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC). Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Dehi High Court in CIT vs. Tin Box Company (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del), holding that when the 4 Deccan Mechanical & Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd., capital and interest free unsecured loan with the assessee far exceeded the interest free loan advanced to the sister concern, disallowance of part of interest out of total interest paid by the assessee to the bank was not justified. More recently, the Hon’ble Su…

Ub Ajanta Breweries Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2952/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ub Ajanta Breweries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Since Merged With United Breweries Circle-2, Ltd.,), Aurangabad Plot No.H-9 To 11, Midc Waluj, Aurangabad Pan : Aabca6594R Appellant Respondent

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 UB Ajanta Breweries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, (since merged with United Breweries Circle-2, Ltd.,), Aurangabad Plot No.H-9 to 11, MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad PAN : AABCA6594R Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Nitin S. Bangad Revenue by Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of hearing 17-01-2022 Date of pronouncement 18-01-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Malibu Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3299/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT/DR

…Rs.37.25 crores and 75.77 crores respectively. It goes without saying that for these two assessment years, the own funds of the assessee are in far excess of the investments made. 12. Now, coming to the decisions cited by the assessee, in CIT vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del) and CIT vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd., 331 ITR 502 (Del), followed in CIT vs. U.K. Paints Ltd. by order dated 19.07.2011 in ITA Nos. 1062/2009, 1826/2010 and batch, in these decision, the Hon’ble High Court held that when the assessee had substantial capital and interest free funds available with it, which far exceed the interest free advance…

M/S Malubu Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3295/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT/DR

…Rs.37.25 crores and 75.77 crores respectively. It goes without saying that for these two assessment years, the own funds of the assessee are in far excess of the investments made. 12. Now, coming to the decisions cited by the assessee, in CIT vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del) and CIT vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd., 331 ITR 502 (Del), followed in CIT vs. U.K. Paints Ltd. by order dated 19.07.2011 in ITA Nos. 1062/2009, 1826/2010 and batch, in these decision, the Hon’ble High Court held that when the assessee had substantial capital and interest free funds available with it, which far exceed the interest free advance…

Kalyani Steels Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 265/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.265/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15 Kalyani Steels Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Mundhwa, Pune – 411 036 Pune Pan : Aaack7315D Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…on, the Hon’ble High Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC). Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Dehi High Court in CIT vs. Tin Box Company (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del), holding that when the capital and interest free unsecured loan with the assessee far exceeded the interest free loan advanced to the sister concern, disallowance of part of interest out of total interest paid by the assessee to the bank was not justified. More recently, the 5 Kalyani Steels Limited Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT(LTU) VS.…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1380/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36Section 43(5)(d)Section 80I

…entries in bank account in a distorted and isolated manner. He further relied up on several judicial precedents as under : i. CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC) ii. CIT Vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd. 51 DTR 98 (Del.) iii. CIT Vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del.) iv. CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 23. He submitted that in light of factual and legal position clarified above, there is no case of any disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax The Act, 1961. 24. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported order of learned assessing officer and le…

Poona Constructtion Machinery & Products Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 493/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ion, the Hon’ble High Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC). Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Dehi High Court in CIT vs. Tin Box Company (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del), holding that when the capital and interest free unsecured loan with the assessee far exceeded the interest free loan advanced to the sister concern, disallowance of part of interest out of total interest paid by the assessee to the bank was not justified. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT(LTU) VS. Reliance Industries Ltd. (…

M/S. R.B. Polymers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 456/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.456/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Rb Polymers Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata 25, R.N. Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Suite-F, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr3117R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata Dated 20.02.2018 Passed In Case No.1220/Cit(A)-2/14-15 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First & Former Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Invoking Section 14A R.W.R 8D(2)(Ii) Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest Amounting To Rs.75614/- Pertaining To Its Exempt Income. Suffice To Say, We Notice At The Outset That The Assessee’S Investments As On 31.03.2009 & 31.03.2010 Read Figures Of Rs.1,71,25,754/- & 1,93,49,912/- (Difference Of Rs.22,24,158/-) As Against Its Non-Interest Bearing Funds In The Nature Of Share Capital Along With Reserves & Surplus Of

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36(2)(i)Section 37

…at the assessee’s non-interest funds turn out to be much more than corresponding investments. There is hardly any justification therefore to sustain the impugned disallowance going by CIT vs. Reliance Utility & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340(Bom), CIT vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del) and Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT 298 ITR 298(SC), CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and PCIT vs Rasoi Ltd. GA No. 633/2016(hon’ble jurisdictional high court). We therefore adopt the very analogy herein as well and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. 3. The assessee’s second substantive grievance cha…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…o in the tabulation filed before the Tribunal on 25.03.2019:  PCIT vs. Spanco Ltd. [ITA No. 488/2016 dt. 26.11.2018] [Bombay High Court]  PCIT vs. JSW Power Trading Co. Ltd. [ITA No. 1075/2015 dt. 14.02.2018] [Bombay High Court]  CIT vs. Tin Box Co. [2003] 260 ITR 637 (Delhi)  Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd [Tax Appeal No. 82 of 2013] [Gujarat High Court]  CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 370 (Gujarat)  JCIT vs. Pudumjee Industries Ltd. [ITA No. 1933/Mum/2018 dt. 13.03.2019]  Cox and Kings Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No. 2066/Mum/2017 dt. 3.01.2019] 46. Alternatively, also it was argued that w…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. National Cable Industries, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4145/Del/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…. ITO ITA No. 4371/2016 date of order 27.04.2017 b) CIT vs. Sharada Erectors (P) Ltd. (2016) 76 taxmann.com 107 (Bom) c) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) d) CIT vs. Gautam Motors (2011) 334 ITR 326 e) CIT vs. Tin Box Co. (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del) f) CIT vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. (2005) 274 ITR 354 (All) g) Swagat Infrastructure Ltd. vs. JCIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 83 (Ahmd. – Tri.) h) Venus Records & Tapes (P) Ltd. vs. Add. CIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 49 (Mum. Tri.) The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is having CC limit with only Union Bank of India during impugned assessment…

Adama India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2314/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcm 09294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghunathan S. Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…st free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT." (Emphasis supplied) 34 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. • CIT vs. Tin Box Company [2003] 260 ITR 637 (Delhi High Court) Applying the above proposition in the context of section 14A, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. vs. Microlabs (2016) 383 ITR 490 (Karnataka High Court) has upheld the view of the Tribunal that when investments are made from common pool and non-interest bearing funds are more than the investment in tax f…