How many judgments cite CIT v. Tin Box Company?

80 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Tin Box Company (260 ITR 637), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Tin Box Company come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(iii), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 143(1), Section 264, Section 56(2)(viib).

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.

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 14A Section 143(1)Section 264 Section 56(2)(viib)Section 142(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

Issues it is cited on

nav method interest free advances dcf method section 288 section 36(1)(iii)accumulated profits section 56(2)(viib)valuation of shares commercial expediency section 264 section 33 advance tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Tin Box Company

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

ITA 3883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR

Section 142Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

…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.) Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 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…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

…so mandate of decision of honourable Supreme Court and several honourable high courts in Munjal Sales Corpn. vs. CIT [(2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC)](Para 17) , CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [(2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.)](Para 10), CIT v. Tin Box Co. [(2003) 260 ITR 637 (Delhi)] (Para 9) , CIT v. South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. [209 CTR 233 (Mad)] (Para 18), CIT v. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P.) Ltd [285 ITR 554/ 150 Taxman 90 (All.)] (Para 5). In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in order of learned CIT – A. Accordingly, ground number 2 is dismissed. 52. Ground number 3, 4, 5, 6 are with respect t…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

Vedanta Ltd (Successor to Cairn India Ltd), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi

ITA 6937/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Mishra, Senior DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 928(1)

…as well as interest bearing funds at its disposal, then the presumption would be that investments were made from interest free funds at the disposal of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi 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 14 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. 9. Applying the above proposition in the context of section 14A, the Hon'ble Karn…

Tupelo Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2427/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2014-15 Tupelo Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 296, Forest Lane, Circle 25(2), Neb Sarai, New Delhi. Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110066 (Pan: Aaect3335J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Department By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

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

…available. The Court here also notices that several decisions were relied upon by the ITAT (CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340/178 Taxman 135 (Bom.), CIT v. Hotel Savera [1999] 239 ITR 795/102 Taxman 247 (Mad), CIT v. Tin Box Co. [2003] 260 ITR 637/[2004] 135 Taxman 145 (Delhi)) in support of the conclusion that when the assessee is 9 Assessment year 2014-15 possessed of 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. 11. The next aspect is as regards the question whether the purpose for which t…

Khandwala Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3100/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3100/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri V. M. Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, DR

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

…of interest on said amount could not be justifiable action. Therefore no disallowance could be mode under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act in respect of amount as loans given to SRPPL. This view is also supported from decision in the case of CJ V Tin Box & Co.260 ITR 637(Del) wherein it was held that capital of the firm and interest free unsecured loans exceeded the amounts advanced to sister concern and hence no disallowance on part of 6 I.T.A. No. 3100/Mum/2011 Khandwala Securities Ltd. interest on borrowed capital be made. If is further seen that the amount was advanced as commercial expediency as the appellan…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5661/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 36(1)(iii)

…terest bearing funds at its disposal, then the presumption would be that investments were made from interest free funds at the disposal of the assessee. 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional 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. 6. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has its own…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5660/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 36(1)(iii)

Dy C.I.T..1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Ismail Mohammed, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

ITA 214/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Ismail Mohammed, Income Tax-1(1), 24/347, Dr. Virdhi Gali Marg, Central Revenue Building, Jawahar Nagar, Civil Lines, Vs. Raipur (C.G.) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aispm8617R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sheetal Shashwat Verma (Dr) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2018

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sheetal Shashwat Verma (DR)

Section 143Section 40

…e funds generated or available with the company, if the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investment.: Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. 274 ITR 354 (AII), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs. South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. 290 ITR 217 (Mad) are also in favour of the appellant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also decisions cited above, the disallowance made by the A.O. cannot be sustained. Hence, the disallowance is deleted.” 9. We notice that the A…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vipul Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the

ITA 5115/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Vipul Ltd., 9-A, 3Rd Floor, Vasant Square Mall, Circle-26(2), Cr Building, Sector-B, Pocket-5, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaca5396C

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…as well as interest bearing funds at its disposal, then the presumption would be that investments were made from interest free funds at the disposal of the assessee. 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. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the order of the CIT(A…

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Durga Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1553/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

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

…53/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 DCI, Cir-1, Slg. Vs. M/s Durga Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility and Poewr Ltd. 213 ITR 340 (Bom) Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT (2008) 289 ITR 298 (SC) CIT vs. Tin Box Co. (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del) CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court are squarely applicable to the instant facts of the case. Therefore, we hold that none of the investments in sister concerns had been made by the assessee out of borrowed funds. The ld. DR has also not brought anything on re…

Dy.C.I.T.1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Navbharat Press, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur-1 Vs Navbharat Press, Press Complex, G.E.Road, Raipur(C.G.)-492001 Pan No. : Aadfn 0350 R (Appellant) Tsednepser .. Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Laskar, Dr Assessee By : None(Written Submission) Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 12.06.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Interest U/S.36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Rs.41,54,811/- As Interest Bearing Funds Were Used For Non-Business Purposes.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Derives Income From Printing & Publishing Of Hindi Daily Newspaper “Nav Bharat” & English Daily “Central Chronicle” From Raipur. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,85,77,530/-. Thereafter The Ao Framed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,27,32,341/-.

For Appellant: None(Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Laskar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE : SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICAL MEMBER DCIT-1(1), Raipur-1 vs Navbharat Press, Press Complex, G.E.Road, Raipur(C.G.)-492001 PAN No. : AADFN 0350 R (Appellant) tsednepseR .. Revenue by : Shri Ajit Kumar Laskar, DR Assessee by : None(Written Submission) Date of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), Raipur, dated 12.06.2014 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. The Revenue has ra…

M/S. Sunil Kumar Kundu, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Siliguri, Sirliguri

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1566/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 1564 To 1566/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Snehangshu Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 36(1)(iii)

…earned by the assessee during the relevant year were sufficient to cover the loan given to sister concern. Impliedly it was held that profits earned during the previous year should also be considered as interest free fund available. (iii) CIT Vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (DEL) If the assessee has substantial capital and interest-free funds available with it, not only in the preceding years but also in the relevant previous year, which far exceed the interest- free advances to the sister concern, no disallowance of interest u/s 36(1) (iii) of the Act could be made. 9 The ld. DR placed reliance on the order of CIT…

Shilpa Memani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5244/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms Charu Goyal, CA

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…est free funds as well as interest bearing funds at its disposal, then the presumption would be that investments were made from interest free funds at its disposal. 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. 8. Applying the above proposition in the context of section 14A, the Hon'ble Karna…

Kuloday Technopack P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3300/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

…tiles (P) Ltd. (1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 417: (1997) 225 ITR 560 (Mad) relied on; Veecumsees vs. CIT (1996) 133 CTR (SC) 500 : (1996) 9 SCC 25 distinguished; CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2001) 252 ITR 878 (Del), CIT vs. Tin Box Co. (2003) 182 CTR (Del) 171 : (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del), CIT vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. (2005) 194 CTR (All) 451 : (2005) 274 ITR 354 (All), CIT vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (2006) 150 Taxman 90 (All), CIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. (2005) 198 CTR (Cal) 426 ': (2006) 280 ITR 525 (Cal) and R.D. Joshi & Co. vs. CIT (2001) 171 CTR (MP) 33: (2001) 251 ITR 332 (MP) dissented from." There…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escort Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6674/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs. Escort Heart Institute & Research Circle-11(1), Centre Ltd., New Delhi. Okhla Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaace8731F Assessee By : Shri R.M. Mehta, Advocate Deptt. By : Shri U.C. Dubey, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, Advocate

Section 36(1)(iii)

…st bearing funds at its disposal, 7 then the presumption would be that investments were made from interest free funds at the disposal of the assessee. 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional 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. 6. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has it…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd., 205, Kushal Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacc0292M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K. Chadha, Ca Date Of Hearing 28.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 07/06/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv (In Short “Cit-A”) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.5614565/- On Account Of Contract Receipts, Ignoring The Fact That During The Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Company Failed To Justify Its Abnormally Low G. P. Rate Of 18.16% In Current Year From 28.9% Last Year. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.14591310/- On Account Of Payment Of Lurgi Life Science(Lls) Germany For Drawing Design Charges, Ignoring The Fact That Benefit Of Enduring Nature Was Drawn By The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…that the assessee had sufficient funds, which were self generated and the money was advanced for commercial purposes, deleted the disallowance of Rs.3,38,462/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tin Box Company, 260 ITR 637 (Del) endorsed the finding of the Tribunal that when the capital of the firm and interest free unsecured loans with the appellant far exceeded the amounts advanced to the sister concern and the Department could not point out any specific interest-bearing borrowed funds diverted by the assessee to its sister concern, no disallowance could be made…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tood at [Rs.] 53.79 crore at the end of the year. Thus, it is evident that the amount invested in such shares or securities is far in excess of share holders' funds.” 9. Reference was made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Tin Box Co. [2003] 260 ITR 637 (Del) to hold that when the assessee had sufficient funds and non interest funds were advanced to a sister concern, no disallowance was justified. Further, the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) had similarly held that when sufficient non interest funds were available for investment then no di…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1849/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 14ASection 36(1)

…diary company in an earlier year. The CIT(A) observed that the A.O nowhere suggested that the assessee used any interest bearing loan funds to make this payment. Thus, the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637, by directing deletion of disallowance of Rs.53,5000/-. 14. The Ld. DR submitted that the loan of Rs.5.35 lacs cannot be said to be advance for business purposes. The assessee company has advanced an interest free loan to its 100% subsidiary. However, it is for its business purpose, the assessee has borrowed funds from banks through commercial p…