East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT

224 ITR 627Supreme Court of India1997#694 most cited

What is East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Where an assessee has mixed funds (both interest-bearing and interest-free funds) and makes an interest-free advance or investment, it is presumed that the interest-free funds were utilized first if they are sufficient to cover such advances or investments. This prevents disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under Section 36(1)(iii).

146

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd v CIT · 224 ITR 627 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest disallowance · mixed fund theory · interest free advances · borrowed funds · commercial expediency · presumption of utilization · interest on borrowed capital

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT

Unitherm Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3, Thane

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2955/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2954 & 2955/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Unitherm Engineerings बनाम/ Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -3, Ltd., Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, A-109, Boomerang, First Floor, Road No.16-Z, Chandivali Farm Road, Wagle Industrial Estate, Chandivali, Powai, Thane(W)-400604 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacu4041L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant By: Shri Madhukar Khandekar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By Shri H M Wanare & Shri Kailash Kanojiya सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.7.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25. 7.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)-2, Thane, Dated 12.2.2015 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 20010-11. Since These Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, These Appeals Are Being Decided By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Common Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Sole Ground Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition On Account Of Notional

For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Khandekar
Section 36(1)(iii)

…sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest-free funds available. In our opinion, the Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 had the occasion to consider the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Woolcombers of India Ltd. [1982] 134 ITR 219 where a similar issue had arisen. Before the Supreme Court it was argued that it should have been presumed that in essence and true character the taxes were paid out of the profits of the relevant year and not out of the overdraft…

Unitherm Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3, Thane

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2954/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2954 & 2955/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Unitherm Engineerings बनाम/ Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -3, Ltd., Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, A-109, Boomerang, First Floor, Road No.16-Z, Chandivali Farm Road, Wagle Industrial Estate, Chandivali, Powai, Thane(W)-400604 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacu4041L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant By: Shri Madhukar Khandekar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By Shri H M Wanare & Shri Kailash Kanojiya सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.7.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25. 7.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)-2, Thane, Dated 12.2.2015 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 20010-11. Since These Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, These Appeals Are Being Decided By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Common Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Sole Ground Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition On Account Of Notional

For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Khandekar
Section 36(1)(iii)

…sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest-free funds available. In our opinion, the Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 had the occasion to consider the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Woolcombers of India Ltd. [1982] 134 ITR 219 where a similar issue had arisen. Before the Supreme Court it was argued that it should have been presumed that in essence and true character the taxes were paid out of the profits of the relevant year and not out of the overdraft…

ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Nistha Mall Management Co. P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2743/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2743/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-8(2)(3), Nishta Mall Management Co. Pvt. Room No. 213, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Mumbai-400 020 Off. Jogeshwari, Vikhroli Link Vs. Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400 060 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm 0705 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Randhir Gupta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nishit Gandhi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.2.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 29.2.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.1.2013, Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 30.11.2011. 2. The Principal Issue Arising In This Appeal, Agitated Per Its’ First Four Grounds, Is In Respect Of The Head Of Income Under Which The Rental Income For Allowing The User

For Appellant: Shri Randhir GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Nishit Gandhi
Section 143(3)Section 56

…the Act would qualify as a business expenditure, a wholly unmaintainable proposition, rejected by the Apex Court, as in the cases of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC) and East India Pharmaceutical Works vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC). Why, income-tax itself would stand to qualify as a deductible business expense. The assessee’s case is wholly without merit, so that the said income would only be assessable u/s. 56. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. प"रणामतः राज"व क" अपील आं"शक "वीकृत क" जाती है । Order pronounced in the open…