Eicher Goodearth Ltd. v. CIT

378 ITR 28High Court2015#7003 most cited

What is Eicher Goodearth Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Interest paid on borrowed funds used to acquire shares in another company to maintain control is allowable as a business expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Eicher Goodearth Ltd. v. CIT · 378 ITR 28 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest expenditure · borrowed funds · share acquisition · control of company · business expense

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Eicher Goodearth Ltd. v. CIT

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sonsltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed to that extent

ITA 4041/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4041/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Acit-2(3) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. बिाम/ Room No.555 Bombay House Aaykar Bhavan 24, Homi Modi Street Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3664/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Acit-2(3) बिाम/ Bombay House Room No.555 24, Homi Modi Street Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement Assessment Year 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80MSection 90

…/s v Phil Corporation (202 Taxman 368) & CIT v Srishti Assessment Year 2003-04 Securities Pvt. Ltd. (321 ITR 498); decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT V/s Rajeev Lochan Kanoria (208 ITR 616); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Eicher Goodearth Ltd. V CIT (378 ITR 28); decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. RPG Transmission Ltd. (359 ITR 673) 10.4 At the outset, it could be noted that dividend income is not exempt in this year but a deduction is allowed to the assessee u/s 80-M in respect of dividend. We are of the considered opinion that there is clear distinction between ‘exemption’ and ‘deduction’…

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

ITA 2191/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 271(1)Section 36

…e assessee. He also referred to the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in 410 ITR 540 in principle Commissioner of income tax versus Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat for the proposition. He also referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 378 ITR 28 in Eicher GoodEarth Ltd versus CIT wherein it has been held that interest paid on amount borrowed to subscribe write issue of another company in order to retain control on it has to be allowed under section 36 (1) (iii) of the act. 9. The learned departmental representative, CIT DR vehemently referred to the order of the learned assessing officer…

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 271(1)Section 36

…e assessee. He also referred to the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in 410 ITR 540 in principle Commissioner of income tax versus Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat for the proposition. He also referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 378 ITR 28 in Eicher GoodEarth Ltd versus CIT wherein it has been held that interest paid on amount borrowed to subscribe write issue of another company in order to retain control on it has to be allowed under section 36 (1) (iii) of the act. 9. The learned departmental representative, CIT DR vehemently referred to the order of the learned assessing officer…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…resulting in any exempt income during the year under consideration. 6.12. Reliance is placed on the decisions in CIT v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd.: 216 Taxman 92 (Del.) , Cheminvest Ltd v. CIT : 379 ITR 33 (Del HC), Eicher Goodearth Ltd. v. CIT: 378 ITR 28 (Del.), VA Tech Escher Wyss Flovel (P) Ltd. v. ACIT: [2014] 147 ITD 678 (Del Trib.) , CIT v. Knorr Bremse India(P) Ltd.: ITA No 1676/2002 (Del Trib.), Interglobe Enterprises v. DCIT: ITA No. 1362 & 1032/D/2013 (Del Trib.), Garware Wall Ropes v. ACIT: ITA No. 5408/2012 (Mum.), ACIT vs. M/s Spray Engineering Devices Ltd: ITA No. 646/Chd/2009 (Chd.),…

DCIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2817/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

For Appellant: Farrokh V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: B. Sriniwas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix.CIT v.Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) xii. Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. ITA [2005] 278 ITR (AT) 1 (Ahd) (para 10) " xiii. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) (para 12) 3.1. In view of the factual matrix and following the aforesaid decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court and in the absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice by either si…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acb India Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and similarly the Cross objection of the assessee is supportive in nature and same is allowed

ITA 5312/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kr Tulisiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80Section 80I

…lowance can be made on such investment. Furthermore, the above view is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd 486/2014 dated 05.09.2014. Further, it was also held in Eicher Goodearth Ltd Vs. CIT 378 ITR 28. The above view was also confirmed in Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 in para No. 18-19. The revenue could not show that above investment is not in Group Company and not a strategic investment. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A with on investments other than strateg…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acb India Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and similarly the Cross objection of the assessee is supportive in nature and same is allowed

ITA 5311/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kr Tulisiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80Section 80I

…lowance can be made on such investment. Furthermore, the above view is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd 486/2014 dated 05.09.2014. Further, it was also held in Eicher Goodearth Ltd Vs. CIT 378 ITR 28. The above view was also confirmed in Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 in para No. 18-19. The revenue could not show that above investment is not in Group Company and not a strategic investment. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A with on investments other than strateg…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acb India Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and similarly the Cross objection of the assessee is supportive in nature and same is allowed

ITA 5310/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kr Tulisiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80Section 80I

…lowance can be made on such investment. Furthermore, the above view is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd 486/2014 dated 05.09.2014. Further, it was also held in Eicher Goodearth Ltd Vs. CIT 378 ITR 28. The above view was also confirmed in Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 in para No. 18-19. The revenue could not show that above investment is not in Group Company and not a strategic investment. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A with on investments other than strateg…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 105/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, Dda Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rohit JainFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…25/-. 25. Reliance was placed on the decisions of various courts of law as quoted by the ld. AR in his paper book pages 16 to 26 which are listed hereinbelow: 23 a) CIT Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd 216 Taxman 92 b) Eicher Goodearth Ltd Vs. CIT 378 ITR 28 c) Intergloble Enterprises VS. DCIT ITA No. 1362 & 1032/DEL/2013 d) Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 e) CIT Vs. Holcim India P Ltd 272 CTR 282 f) REI Agro Ltd Vs. DCIT 160 TTJ 107 g) ACB India Ltd Vs. ACIT 374 ITR 108 h) CIT Vs. Givo Ltd ITA No. 941/2010 i) Friends Clearing Agency P Ltd Vs. CIT 332 ITR 269 26. In that view of the matter, we do n…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…resulting in any exempt income during the year under consideration. 6.12. Reliance is placed on the decisions in CIT v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd.: 216 Taxman 92 (Del.) , Cheminvest Ltd v. CIT : 379 ITR 33 (Del HC), Eicher Goodearth Ltd. v. CIT: 378 ITR 28 (Del.), VA Tech Escher Wyss Flovel (P) Ltd. v. ACIT: [2014] 147 ITD 678 (Del Trib.) , CIT v. Knorr Bremse India(P) Ltd.: ITA No 1676/2002 (Del Trib.), Interglobe Enterprises v. DCIT: ITA No. 1362 & 1032/D/2013 (Del Trib.), Garware Wall Ropes v. ACIT: ITA No. 5408/2012 (Mum.), ACIT vs. M/s Spray Engineering Devices Ltd: ITA No. 646/Chd/2009 (Chd.),…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

ITA 1929/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: R P Meena
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix.CIT v.Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) 5 1929/M/12-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (+7Appls) xii. Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. ITA [2005] 278 ITR (AT) 1 (Ahd) (para 10) " xiii. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) (para 12) 3.1. In view of the factual matrix and following the aforesaid decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court and in the absence of any con…

ACIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maxima Agrotrade P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3515/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-14(2)(1), M/S Maxima Agrotrade 432, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Capri Building Vs. M.K. Road, Anant, Kanekar Marg, Mumbai-400020 Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafcm0945G

Section 14Section 14A

…the assessee, was not in doubt, no disallowance could be made u/s 14A of the Act. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 97 (Guj.)(para-15), CIT vs Hero Cycle Ltd. 323 ITR 518 (P & H)(para-15), Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 378 ITR 28 (Del), Para-14, 9 M/s Maxima Agrotrade Pvt Ltd. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.)(para- 12) and consistent stand taken by the Tribunal, considering the decisions from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), consequently, the appe…

Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2862/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: S/Shri Sandeep Jhanwar and Hitendra Bhandari –AR.sFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bare-DR
Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix.CIT v.Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) xii. Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. ITA [2005] 278 ITR (AT) 1 (Ahd) (para 10) " xiii. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) (para 12) 3.1. In view of the factual matrix and following the aforesaid decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court and in the absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice by either si…

PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4170/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix.CIT v.Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) xii. Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. ITA [2005] 278 ITR (AT) 1 (Ahd) (para 10) " xiii. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) (para 12) 3.1. In view of the factual matrix and following the aforesaid decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court and in the absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice by either si…

DCIT 7(1), Mumbai vs. PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3378/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix.CIT v.Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) xii. Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. ITA [2005] 278 ITR (AT) 1 (Ahd) (para 10) " xiii. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) (para 12) 3.1. In view of the factual matrix and following the aforesaid decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court and in the absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice by either si…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit, M/S Gateway Distriparks Circle-3(1), Ltd. B 1/3, Emca House बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Sahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaacg3425C (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 80I

…ajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix. CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) xii. Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. ITA [2005] 278 ITR (AT) 1 (Ahd) (para 10) " xiii. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) (para 12) I. T. A. No. 749 of 2014. 3.1. In view of the factual matrix and following the aforesaid decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court and in the absence of any contrary decision brought t…

Eicher Goodearth Ltd. v. CIT (378 ITR 28) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax