Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

379 ITR 347Supreme Court of India2015#208 most cited

What is Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Revenue cannot substitute its judgment for that of a businessman regarding the necessity or reasonableness of an expenditure. If an expense is incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, it is deductible, and the Revenue cannot question its commercial expediency.

361

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 379 ITR 347 · 16 SCC 359 · Section 36(1)(iii) · commercial expediency · business expediency · disallowance of expenditure · interest-free advances · corporate guarantee · wholly and exclusively for business · Revenue's armchair approach · sales promotion expenditure

Also reported as

16 SCC 359

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 147Section 1961Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 132Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

interest free advancescommercial expediencysection 36(1)(iii)corporate guaranteebusiness expediencysection 36book profitssection 36(1)arm's length pricetransfer pricing adjustmentassociated enterprisessection 92c

Judgments citing Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Nilesh Jabarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4376/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya: A.Y : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : A.Y : 2013-14 Nilesh Jabarmal Jain Vs. ITO - 19(2)(4), Mumbai C/o. D.C. Bothra & Co. LLP (Respondent) (formerly known as D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1st floor, Opp Bank of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400 007. PAN : ADZPJ6537F (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh Respondent by : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari Date of Hearing : 23/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05/12/2019 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-54, Mumbai dated…

Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6396/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Circle 4(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2457D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-5, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…idiary companies is a business loss and not a capital loss as held by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. 12. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 379 ITR 347 (SC), he drew the attention of the bench to para 13 of the order which reads as under:- “In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in 'CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd.' [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Delhi) wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the p…

M/S. Design Forum International, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3317/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman and dictate as to what is “commercial expediency”. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: 1. S. A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) 2. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) 3. PCIT vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (Del. HC) (ITA No. 205 order dated 28.09.2018) 4. DCIT vs. M/s Jetair Pvt. Ltd. (Tri. Del.) (ITA Nos. 2712, 2713 and 6884/Del/2015 order dated 19.09.2018) 5. Chemical Sales and Services 3N vs. ITO (Tri. Del.) (ITA No. 4146/Del/2015 order dated 26.09.2018) 6. PCIT vs. DLF Holding Ltd. (Del. HC) (ITA No.…

Super Auto Centre, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7709/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2014-15

For Appellant: SH. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: MS. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…shek Industries Ltd. Has been overruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Munjal Sales Corp. vs. CIT (2008) 298 ITR /168 Taxmann. 43(SC) and in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Central) Ludhiana (2015) 63 taxmann.com 308 (SC)/[2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC) (2015) 281 CTR 481 (SC.). 2. The facts relating to the case are that the assessee filed its return of income at Rs. 8,42,030/- on 19.9.2014. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) was issued on 28.8.2015 by the ITO, Ward 28(2), New Delhi and the same…

A.C.I.T., Circle -3, Srinagar vs. M/S Khyber Industries Pvt . Ltd, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 646/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.646(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Amar Pal Meena (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. P. K. Mishra (Ld. CA)
Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

…not only respectfully followed the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT, Jalnadhar-1 vs. Max India Ltd. reported at [2017] 80 taxmann.com 98, but also followed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 379 ITR 347 and Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT, Ludhiana (Civil Appeal No.1378/2008 dated 19th Feb., 2008) and also analyzed the facts that the assessee had total interest free funds amounting to Rs.58,77,69,077/- which includes share capital, reserves and surplus and loans and advances (deposits), whereas advance paid to the sister concern was only Rs.18,…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…difference in royalty and this provision is made for ascertained liability and the same is deductable as deduction and placed reliance on the following judgments. S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (A) & Anr (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) Sassoon J. David & Co P Ltd vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We shall take up the primary ground which goes to the very root of the matter i.e validality of the reopening of the assessment. Admittedly original assessment order was passed by the Assessing ITA Nos.2280-83 /…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…difference in royalty and this provision is made for ascertained liability and the same is deductable as deduction and placed reliance on the following judgments. S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (A) & Anr (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) Sassoon J. David & Co P Ltd vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We shall take up the primary ground which goes to the very root of the matter i.e validality of the reopening of the assessment. Admittedly original assessment order was passed by the Assessing ITA Nos.2280-83 /…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…difference in royalty and this provision is made for ascertained liability and the same is deductable as deduction and placed reliance on the following judgments. S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (A) & Anr (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) Sassoon J. David & Co P Ltd vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We shall take up the primary ground which goes to the very root of the matter i.e validality of the reopening of the assessment. Admittedly original assessment order was passed by the Assessing ITA Nos.2280-83 /…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…difference in royalty and this provision is made for ascertained liability and the same is deductable as deduction and placed reliance on the following judgments. S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (A) & Anr (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) Sassoon J. David & Co P Ltd vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We shall take up the primary ground which goes to the very root of the matter i.e validality of the reopening of the assessment. Admittedly original assessment order was passed by the Assessing ITA Nos.2280-83 /…

Smt. Suman Lakhani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…ITA-857/Del/2016. Smt. Suman Lakhani. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 857/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Smt. Suman Lakhani, ACIT, W-9, G.K.-II, Vs. Circle-II, New Delhi-110048. Faridabad. PAN No: AAGPL7939R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Madan, CA Revenue by : Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR ORDER Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for s…

A.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Agra vs. Dr. Anil Kumar Verma, Agra

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

ITA 274/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaa.Y. :2009-10

Section 36Section 40

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member A.Y. :2009-10 ACIT, Circle 4(1), vs. Dr. Anil Kumar Verma, Agra Mahindra Market, Goverdhan Hotel, Agra (Appellant) PAN AAMPV5976J (Respondent) C.O. No.22/Agra/2013 [ITA NO.274/Agra/2013 A.Y. : 2009-10 Dr. Anil Kumar Verma, Vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1), Mahindra Market, Agra Goverdhan Hotel, Agra PAN AAMPV5976J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Waseem Arashad, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri S.C. Jain And Shri S.K. Bajpai, CA Date of Hearing 01.08.2019 Date of Pronouncemen…

Sh. Dharam Pal Aggarwal, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 57

…surplus funds available with the assessee therefore the disallowance made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of • CIT Vs. Hero Cycles P. Ltd. reported at 379 ITR 347 (SC) 10. In her rival submissions the Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made in their respective orders. 11. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case the A.O. made the disallowance for the reasons th…

M/S. Amba Metals, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5378/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…pport, he relied upon the following judgments. • CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC). • Punjab Stainless Steel Industries. Vs. ACIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi. • Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC). 3 I.T.A. No.5378/DEL/2016 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT (A). 5. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant findings given in the impugned order, it is seen that assesse has given loan to M/s. Shri Sidhbali Ispat Ltd. to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,0…

DCIT, Karnal vs. M/S Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Karnal

In the result, ITA.No. ITA

ITA 2559/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. And Ms. Umang Luthra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

…Pvt. Ltd., & M/s. Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Karnal. High Court in the case of M/s. Abhishek Industries Ltd., 286 ITR 1 (P&H) which have been subsequently overruled by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles P. Ltd., vs. CIT [2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The assessee pleaded before the authorities below that advances were given out of business expediency and that assessee- company had sufficient interest free funds available to justify the interest free advance given to the parties. It was als…

DCIT, Karnal vs. M/S Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Karnal

In the result, ITA.No. ITA

ITA 2558/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. And Ms. Umang Luthra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

…Pvt. Ltd., & M/s. Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Karnal. High Court in the case of M/s. Abhishek Industries Ltd., 286 ITR 1 (P&H) which have been subsequently overruled by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles P. Ltd., vs. CIT [2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The assessee pleaded before the authorities below that advances were given out of business expediency and that assessee- company had sufficient interest free funds available to justify the interest free advance given to the parties. It was als…

DCIT, Karnal vs. M/S. Mahesh Timber Pvt. Ltd., Karnal

In the result, ITA.No. ITA

ITA 2557/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. And Ms. Umang Luthra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

…Pvt. Ltd., & M/s. Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Karnal. High Court in the case of M/s. Abhishek Industries Ltd., 286 ITR 1 (P&H) which have been subsequently overruled by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles P. Ltd., vs. CIT [2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The assessee pleaded before the authorities below that advances were given out of business expediency and that assessee- company had sufficient interest free funds available to justify the interest free advance given to the parties. It was als…

DCIT, Karnal vs. M/S. Mahesh Timber Pvt. Ltd., Karnal

In the result, ITA.No. ITA

ITA 2556/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. And Ms. Umang Luthra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

…Pvt. Ltd., & M/s. Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Karnal. High Court in the case of M/s. Abhishek Industries Ltd., 286 ITR 1 (P&H) which have been subsequently overruled by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles P. Ltd., vs. CIT [2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The assessee pleaded before the authorities below that advances were given out of business expediency and that assessee- company had sufficient interest free funds available to justify the interest free advance given to the parties. It was als…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Orbis Power Venture Pvt. Ltd., (Since Merged With India Power Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1037/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A.K. Nayak, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ruchira Lakhatia, ACA
Section 143(2)

…. We also find that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT(Appeals) (supra) had been subsequently approved by another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in (2015) 379 ITR 347. 5.4.4. We find that the test of commercial expediency is proved in the instant case beyond doubt and hence the interest paid on borrowed capital is to be allowed. We find that all the aforesaid judgements relied upon hereinabove apply to the facts of the instant case and hence we hold that the interest paid on borrowed funds in the sum of Rs. 5,…

M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2966/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ng for some hypothetical evidences. The very fact that funds borrowed were invested in shares of an associate company itself demonstrates the business strategy of the assessee company. We find the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 379 ITR 347 (SC) has held that where loans were advanced by the assessee to its various associate concerns as a part of business strategy, interest on such loans was allowable deduction u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. Extending this proposition to the facts of the present case, investments in shares of the associate concerns by the assessee is part of business s…

M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd., Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1539/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ng for some hypothetical evidences. The very fact that funds borrowed were invested in shares of an associate company itself demonstrates the business strategy of the assessee company. We find the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 379 ITR 347 (SC) has held that where loans were advanced by the assessee to its various associate concerns as a part of business strategy, interest on such loans was allowable deduction u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. Extending this proposition to the facts of the present case, investments in shares of the associate concerns by the assessee is part of business s…