Commissioner of Income-Tax v. M.S. Venkateswaran

222 ITR 163High Court1996#15345 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. M.S. Venkateswaran

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…2 cr in the financial year under consideration, which clearly shows that the borrowed funds have been utilized for giving interest free advances and also ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT VS MS Venkateswaran reported at 222 ITR 163?" 11. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure on late payment of TDS ignoring the fact that the interest paid was for committing a default in respect of a statutory liability in payment of taxes and the said expenditure is in no way connected with…

M/S. Rmz Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…ITA No.954/Bang/2022 M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited The Millenia Level 1 & 14, No.1 & 2 Murphy Road NFAC Vs. Ulsoor Delhi Bangalore 560 008. PAN NO : AADCR3654H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of Hearing : 08.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023 O R D E R This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dat…

M/S General Aerodynamics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S General Aerodynamics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer-2(1)(2), Ali Chambers, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Room No. 543, Aayakar Mumbai-400023. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate-400021. Pan No. Aabcg 4629 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Smita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/07/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…penditure on the borrowed funds which were diverted to non expenditure on the borrowed funds which were diverted to non business objects. Further reliance is placed on business objects. Further reliance is placed on CIT Vs M.S. CIT Vs M.S. Venkateswaran (Mad) 222 ITR 163 K. Somasundaram & Venkateswaran (Mad) 222 ITR 163 K. Somasundaram & Venkateswaran (Mad) 222 ITR 163 K. Somasundaram & Brothers Vs CI Brothers Vs CIT (Mad) 238 ITR 939 where in it was held that in it was held that When Department established the fact of diversion of borrowed When Department established the fact of diversion of borrowed When Depart…

Essar Power Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1849/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri K. S. Rajendrakumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 271Section 36

…see to prove that interest claimed is deductible U/s.36(l)(iii (i) CIT vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport Pvt. Ltd. 61 ITR 480 (Mad.) (ii) Kishinchand Cheliaram vs. CIT 114 ITR 654 (Bom.) (iii) R. Dalmiya vs. CIT 133 ITR 169 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs. M.S.Venkateshwaran 222 ITR 163 (Mad.) (v) K.Somasundaram & Brothers vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad.) 17 Essar Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT (vi) CIT vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del.) has confirmed in principle in Motor General Finance Ltd. vs. CU 267 ITR 381 (SC) 7 Further reliance is placed on CIT Vs. Coimbatore Sale Transport Pvt. Ltd. [61 ITR , 487 (Mad)] in which…

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

…e interest on the borrowings to the extent those are diverted to sister concerns or other persons without interest. K. Somasundaram & Bros.vs. CIT (1999) 153 CTR (Mad) 153: (1999) 238 ITR 939 (Mad), CIT vs. M.S. Venkateswaran (1997) 141 CTR (Mad) 510 : (1996) 222 ITR 163 (Mad), CIT vs. P. Ganu Rao & Sons (1989) 77 CTR (Mad) 28 : (1990) 185 ITR 324 (Mad), CIT vs V.I. Baby & Co. (2002) 174 CTR (Ker) 164 : (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Ker), CIT vs, Motor General Finance Ltd. (2002) 173 CTR (Del) 123 : (2002) 254 ITR 449 (Del), CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All), Indian Meta…

P.Sundararajan, Avanashi vs. DCIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1666/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1666/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…o the business and utilised in the business, the assessee could thereafter claim the interest paid as a deduction. But so long as the diversion continues the assessee would be disentitled. 14.1 In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. M.S. Venkateswaran 222 ITR 163, the Madras High Court accepting the plea of the Revenue held as under (Page 168): The facts on record would clearly go to show that the father of the assessee had definitely diverted a portion of the borrowed capital for his own purposes and not for business purposes. In such a case, it cannot be said that there can be a presumption that a par…

Commissioner of Income-Tax v. M.S. Venkateswaran (222 ITR 163) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax