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 366,470 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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…s/14 has been approved by the Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.8 In our opinion, the A.O should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the A.O should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company, or to a subsidiary of the assessee as a measure of commercial expediency, and if it…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 419/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…2017 has been approved by the Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.5 In our opinion, the A.O should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the A.O should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company, or to a subsidiary of the assessee as a measure of commercial expediency, and if it…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 418/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…2017 has been approved by the Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.5 In our opinion, the A.O should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the A.O should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company, or to a subsidiary of the assessee as a measure of commercial expediency, and if it…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 384/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…2017 has been approved by the Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.5 In our opinion, the A.O should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the A.O should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company, or to a subsidiary of the assessee as a measure of commercial expediency, and if it…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 383/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…2017 has been approved by the Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.5 In our opinion, the A.O should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the A.O should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company, or to a subsidiary of the assessee as a measure of commercial expediency, and if it…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Richa Holdings Ltd., Faridabad

In the result departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 555/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CA
Section 14ASection 8D

…it has given interest free advances to number of persons out of interest free funds available with it. Therefore no nexus have been proved between interest free advances and borrowed funds. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycle Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 379 ITR 347 held that assessee has credit balance in bank account at the time of advances, no disallowance of interest on the borrowings can be made. Other decisions relied upon by Ld. CIT(A) clearly support its findings for deleting the addition. Even on ground No. 2 Ld. CIT(A)Faridabad as per annexure A filed by the department did not Page 6 of 7 recomm…

Virender Kumar Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6293/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Virender Kumar Gupta, Nai Anaj Mandi, Ward-4(5), Gurgaon. Farrukhnagar. Pan: Abtpg 0018L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : S/Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & P.K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-I, Gurgaon, Vide Order Dated 14.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…he decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. reported in 286 ITR 1 (P &H) is no longer a good law in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 379 ITR 347. The relevant decision in the case of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. is reproduced hereinbelow: “A perusal of the order passed by the High Court would reveal that the High Court has not at all discussed the aforesaid facts which were established on record pertaining to the interest free advance given to M/s. Hero Fibres Limited as well as loans given to…

Datacomp Web Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2890/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Prateek Jain and Mahavir Jain-ARFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ एच मुंबई एच एच” खंडपीठ एच खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“H”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2890/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-1…

Roshani Begum, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 43/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 14A

…Assessing Officer and there is no nexus between interest baring loans and interest free advances hence no disallowance could be made. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hero Cycle Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347(SC).Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to written submissions at page 3 to demonstrate the availability of funds. The ld. Departmental Representative opposed the submissions and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer has brought out the fact that the assessee ha made interest free advances out of interest bearing…

Sh. Vineet Maini, Hisar vs. ITO, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 5240/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2010-11 Vineet Maini, Ito, Ward- 4, Prop. M/S Martin & Brown Hisar. Vs. Pharmaceuticals, Sector – 27 -28, Hisar. Pan : Aaxpm 6619 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kuldip Khera, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vineet Maini, ITO, Ward- 4, Prop. M/s Martin & Brown Hisar. Vs. Pharmaceuticals, Sector – 27 -28, Hisar. PAN : AAXPM 6619 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kuldip Khera, CA Respondent by : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 03-03-2017 Date of pronouncement : 28-03-2017 O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hisar, u/s 143(3) of…

Prem Raja Yarns, Karur vs. ITO, Karur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the three years stand allowed

ITA 860/CHNY/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.858, 859 & 860/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S Prem Raja Yarns, The Income Tax Officer, No.11, Main Road, V. Ward – 1(2), Ramakrishnapuram, Karur. Karur. Pan : Aaafp 6640 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT

…samy was for the purpose of business, according to the Ld. counsel, both the authorities below are not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. 8. On the contrary, Shri B. Sahadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee, in fact, recognized income on the deposit of `8,10,000/- for assessment year 1996-97 and 1997-98. Therefore, there is no justification for not recognizing the interest income for the year under consideration. Moreover, the interest paid to pa…

Prem Raja Yarns, Karur vs. ITO, Karur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the three years stand allowed

ITA 859/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.858, 859 & 860/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S Prem Raja Yarns, The Income Tax Officer, No.11, Main Road, V. Ward – 1(2), Ramakrishnapuram, Karur. Karur. Pan : Aaafp 6640 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT

…samy was for the purpose of business, according to the Ld. counsel, both the authorities below are not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. 8. On the contrary, Shri B. Sahadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee, in fact, recognized income on the deposit of `8,10,000/- for assessment year 1996-97 and 1997-98. Therefore, there is no justification for not recognizing the interest income for the year under consideration. Moreover, the interest paid to pa…

Prem Raja Yarns, Karur vs. ITO, Karur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the three years stand allowed

ITA 858/CHNY/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.858, 859 & 860/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S Prem Raja Yarns, The Income Tax Officer, No.11, Main Road, V. Ward – 1(2), Ramakrishnapuram, Karur. Karur. Pan : Aaafp 6640 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT

…samy was for the purpose of business, according to the Ld. counsel, both the authorities below are not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. 8. On the contrary, Shri B. Sahadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee, in fact, recognized income on the deposit of `8,10,000/- for assessment year 1996-97 and 1997-98. Therefore, there is no justification for not recognizing the interest income for the year under consideration. Moreover, the interest paid to pa…

Bajargan Traders, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the ground no

ITA 137/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C. A)For Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena (JCIT)
Section 133

…+आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No. 137/JP/17 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Bajargan Traders The ACIT, Circle-2, Alwar C/o Kalani & Co., CA, 5th Floor , Vs. The Mile stone , Gandhi Nagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AABFB 2413 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (C. A) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Re…

M/S. C.K. Cotspin Pvt. Ltd., Burhanpur vs. The DCIT, Khandwa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 816/IND/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

…the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. In the present case, there sufficient interest free funds were available at the disposal of the assessee. We further find support from decision in the case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. (2015) 379 ITR 347(SC)/63 taxmann.com 308 (SC)/ (2016) 236 Taxman 447 (SC)wherein it was held as under: 11. We are of the opinion that such an approach is clearly faulty in law and cannot be countenanced. 12. Insofar as loans to the sister concern/subsidiary company are concerned, law in this behalf is recapitulated by this Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd.…

E-City Investments & Holdings Comapny P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

ITA 1153/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…n the form of loan, advances or share application money. If the amount has been invested for the purposes of business of the assessee, then no disallowance can be made in the hands of the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) vide latest order dated 05/11/2015 on the issue of interest on borrowed capital, wherein, advances were made to subsidiaries, pursuant to undertaking given to financial institutions by assessee to provide addition margin to subsidiary to meet working capital for meeting cash losses, it was held that the advances were out of business expedien…

M/S Divakar Solar System Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…5.4.3. We also find that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd vs CIT reported 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 (SC) . 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…

Sh. Rahul Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 537/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(4), Rahul Aggarwal, G-368, Dda Flats, Pocket-2, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi Pan : Aajpa3841J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Gopal Nathani, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/11/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxvii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2010-11 Raising Following Grounds:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(4), Rahul Aggarwal, G-368, DDA Flats, Pocket-2, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi PAN : AAJPA3841J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Gopal Nathani, CA Respondent by Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR Date of hearing 24.08.2016 Date of pronouncement 18.11.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26/11/2013 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals…

M/S. Global Emerging Markets India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2746/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Seth, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 117JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2746/Del./2014 Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Global Emerging Markets India Ltd., vs. Income-tax Officer, B-28, Pushpanjali Farms, Bijwasan, Ward 12(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAACG 3233C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sumit Seth, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 24.10.2016 Date of pronouncement : 27.10.2016 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A…

Jayneer Capital Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 694/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.694/M/2014 (Assessment Year:2008-2009) I.T.A. No.695/M/2014 (Assessment Year:2009-2010) फनाभ/ Jayneer Capital Private Limited, Acit, Circle 6(1), Continental Building, Mumbai. Vs. 135, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacj1688G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Niraj Seth प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Alok Johari, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johari, CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ision in SA Builders‟ case requires reconsideration. In view of the aforesaid decision of SA Builders case continues to hold the field if and till it is overruled. In fact, the Apex Court itself in the case of Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd, dated 5.11.2015 reported in 379 ITR 347 has reiterated the observations of the SA Builders‟ case to hold that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) in respect of interest free advances given to subsidiaries out of business expediency can be made. It reiterated that the revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm- chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of direct…