India Cements Ltd. v. CIT

60 ITR 52Supreme Court of India1966#350 most cited

What is India Cements Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenses incurred for obtaining a loan for the purpose of the assessee's business, such as debenture discount, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty, are considered revenue expenditure. These liabilities, though potentially spread over time, are deductible as revenue expenses.

247

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

India Cements Ltd. v. CIT · 60 ITR 52 · Section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · expenses for obtaining loan · cost of raising finance · debenture discount · bank guarantee charges · stamp duty on loan · commercial expediency

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 37(1)Section 37Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 40A(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 35dsection 135commercial expediencydisallowance of interest expendituresection 139(5)section 40a(2)(b)revenue expendituresection 92bsection 36(1)(iii)section 244acorporate guaranteeenduring benefit

Judgments citing India Cements Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin

ITA 319/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Income Tax, v. 1, Sai Flats, 55, Pillaiyar Koil St., Compan…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Chennai

ITA 318/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Income Tax, v. 1, Sai Flats, 55, Pillaiyar Koil St., Compan…

M/S. Swaro vs. Ki India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 5621/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Manoj PardasaniFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

…cordingly, no adjustment could be made in the actual cost of the assets for purposes of grant of depreciation for any increase/decrease of liability subsequently arising due to exchange fluctuation’. Reliance of the ld. AR on India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) is misplaced. In that case, it was held that interest on loan taken for business is deductible, irrespective of the fact that such a loan has been used for revenue or capital purpose. It is obvious that in that case the question was of allowing deduction of interest on capital borrowed for business purpose and not of depreciation on the increa…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Swaroski India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 5496/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Manoj PardasaniFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

…cordingly, no adjustment could be made in the actual cost of the assets for purposes of grant of depreciation for any increase/decrease of liability subsequently arising due to exchange fluctuation’. Reliance of the ld. AR on India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) is misplaced. In that case, it was held that interest on loan taken for business is deductible, irrespective of the fact that such a loan has been used for revenue or capital purpose. It is obvious that in that case the question was of allowing deduction of interest on capital borrowed for business purpose and not of depreciation on the increa…

Cambridge Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1469/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT, DR-I
Section 10Section 10ASection 144C(5)

…debt created by bonds is by issuing equity shares in lieu of payment in cash. It does not detract in any way the legal character as debt. Therefore, according to the assessee, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd Vs CIT, 60 ITR 52, which has been followed by the ITAT, Jaipur in Moden Syntex (India) Vs DCJT, 95 TTJ 161 and a host of other decisions apply. The AO has relied on the decision of the ITAT, Ahmadabad Bench in Ashima Syntex Ltd Vs ACIT, 100 ITD 247) wherein it has been held that expenditure incurred by the assessee on issuance of wholly convertible debentures is no…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Virat Investment and Merca

ITA/37/2005HC Delhi19 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 143Section 57

…en no question for different treatment. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court reported as CIT v. M Ethurajan (2005) 273 ITR 95 (Mad.); CIT v. Model Manufacturing Company, (1990) 122 ITR 767 (Cal.) and India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC). 7. In the present case, shorn of complexities which followed the transaction, LIC Mutual Funds financed the assessee’s acquisition of the debentures which it invested in. No doubt, in the first instance, the LIC Mutual Funds was an allotee. This appears to be one of the important consideration which weighed with the Revenue in disall…

Commissioner of Income Tax VI vs. M/S Virat Investment & Mercant

ITA/636/2004HC Delhi19 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 143Section 57

…en no question for different treatment. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court reported as CIT v. M Ethurajan (2005) 273 ITR 95 (Mad.); CIT v. Model Manufacturing Company, (1990) 122 ITR 767 (Cal.) and India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC). 7. In the present case, shorn of complexities which followed the transaction, LIC Mutual Funds financed the assessee’s acquisition of the debentures which it invested in. No doubt, in the first instance, the LIC Mutual Funds was an allotee. This appears to be one of the important consideration which weighed with the Revenue in disall…

Commissioner of Income Tax VI vs. M/S Virat Investment & Mercant

ITA/709/2004HC Delhi19 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 143Section 57

…en no question for different treatment. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court reported as CIT v. M Ethurajan (2005) 273 ITR 95 (Mad.); CIT v. Model Manufacturing Company, (1990) 122 ITR 767 (Cal.) and India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC). 7. In the present case, shorn of complexities which followed the transaction, LIC Mutual Funds financed the assessee’s acquisition of the debentures which it invested in. No doubt, in the first instance, the LIC Mutual Funds was an allotee. This appears to be one of the important consideration which weighed with the Revenue in disall…

Seto Teknolog P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4859/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Banger -CIT
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…that deduction is allowable if money is borrowed for the purpose of business. The expression for the purpose of business is much wider than the expression for the purpose of earning profits’ as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd., 60 ITR 52. Thus, for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) it would be irrelevant to consider whether borrowed money was utilized for meeting day to day expenses or for acquiring capital assets to be used in business. Therefore, interest for borrowing would be allowed even if borrowed fund is utilized for acquiring plant and machinery or land and…

Royal Cushion Viyl Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6481/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Amrita Singh
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…isallowed the interest liability of amount advanced to its sister concern. Therefore, the case of the assessee is distinguishable from the above decision relied on by the AO. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) that interest is allowable irrespective of the fact whether the amount has been borrowed for working capital or for acquiring a capital asset. We find that CIT(A) does not dispute the submission of the assessee before him that a substantial part of interest is disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. In view of the above, the disallowance of Rs. 40,69,…

Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6594/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year:2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Amrita Singh
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year:2006-07 M/s Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd. Vs. ACIT 9 (3), Aayakar Bhavan Plot 60 CD, Shlok Building, 1st Floor, Mumbai-400020 Govt. Ind. Estate, Charkop, Kandivli (W), Mumbai-400067. PAN No. AAACR5308P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mayur A Shah, Respondent By : Smt. Amrita Singh, Date of Hearing : 17/08/2016 Date of pronouncement : 30/09/2016 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant asses…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5980/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 1Section 10ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…t. On the same analogy, the processing fees paid by the assessee for obtaining such loans is also allowable as business expenditure. More over the issue is covered with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’ in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, wherein the Supreme Court held that the expenditure in raising loans or issuing 52 ITA No.4894/Mum/2008 debentures would be revenue in nature, irrespective of whether the borrowing is a long term or short term one. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the assessee.” Thus, from the above, it is clear that the disallowance has been delete…

M/S. National Textile Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2416/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. National Textile Vs. Ito, Ward-13(3), New Delhi Corporation Ltd., Core-4, Scope Complex-7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aaacn2847I (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manoj Anand, Ca Respondent By Ms. Deepika Mittal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 02/01/2014 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Cit (A) Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 80 ITR 415 and decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income 10 AY: 2003-04 Tax reported in 60 ITR 52. Both these decisions are with reference to the Income Tax Act, 1922. In both the decision the expenditure in the nature of stamp duty, registration fee, lawyers fee etc. incurred in respect of issue of debentures by a company to secure a loan has been held to be not in the nature of capital expenditure and the criterias for arriving the conclusion…

Sh. Raj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2821/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 24(1) A 2/31, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi New Delhi 110 029 Pan: Aagpj 5125 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…if the interest was in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession. Tribunal was therefore justified in holding that interest payment could not be disallowed as per provisions of s.361(1)(iii) – India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (S.C.); State of Madras vs. GJ Coelbo (1964) 53 ITR 186 (SC), Nabadwip Chandra Roy vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 591 (Assam), CIT vs. Indian Bank Ltd. (1965) 56 ITR 77 (SC) and P.Krishna Menon vs. CIT 35 ITR 48 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Model Mfg. Co. P.Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 767 (Cal.) distinguished.” 7.2. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. P…

Hindustan Motors Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-6, Kolkata

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

ITA 2644/KOL/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 350Section 35D

…s by deducting the same from share premium account and claimed such expenses as revenue expenses in the computation of income. According to the AO, the assessee made such claim on the basis of law laid down in the case of CIT vs. India Cements Ltd reported in 60 ITR 52 and the AO held that law laid down above case supra is not applicable to the assessee which resulted an addition of Rs.2,40,88,946/- and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. 4. In challenge, the Assessee contended before the CIT-A as under:- The Appellant had used the proceeds of debentures for the purpose of the business. The…

Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 671/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr CounselFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT-I
Section 154Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. A.Y. Appellant V Respondent s 1 671(Bang)/2011 2005-06 M/s Bosch Limited, ACIT, LTU, Hosur Road, Adugodi, Bangalore Bangalore 2 IT(TP) No. 2005-06 ACIT, LTU, M/s Bosch Limited, 719(Bang)/2011 Bangalore Hosur Road, Bangalore 3 672(Bang)/2011 2006-07 M/s Bosch Limited, ACIT, LTU, Hosur Road, Bangalore Bangalore 4 665(Bang)/2011 2006-07 DCIT, LTU, M/s Bosch Limited, Bangalore Hosur Road, Bangalore 5 1211(Bang)/2015 2006-07 M/s Bosch Limited, DCIT, LTU,…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground

ITA 4790/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Rupinder Bror CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…before us the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest expenditure should not be disallowed in relation to loan given to subsidiaries based on commercial expediency: 1.Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd ( 56ITR 52 ) (SC) 2.India Cements Ltd (60 ITR 52) (SC) 3.S.A. Builders Ltd. ( 288 ITR 1) (SC) 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure: 1. Shrishti Securities 321 ITR 498 ( H.C.Bom) 2. Rajeev Locha…

Minacs P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground

ITA 4276/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Rupinder Bror CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…before us the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest expenditure should not be disallowed in relation to loan given to subsidiaries based on commercial expediency: 1.Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd ( 56ITR 52 ) (SC) 2.India Cements Ltd (60 ITR 52) (SC) 3.S.A. Builders Ltd. ( 288 ITR 1) (SC) 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure: 1. Shrishti Securities 321 ITR 498 ( H.C.Bom) 2. Rajeev Locha…

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT OSD 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground

ITA 620/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Rupinder Bror CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…before us the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest expenditure should not be disallowed in relation to loan given to subsidiaries based on commercial expediency: 1.Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd ( 56ITR 52 ) (SC) 2.India Cements Ltd (60 ITR 52) (SC) 3.S.A. Builders Ltd. ( 288 ITR 1) (SC) 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure: 1. Shrishti Securities 321 ITR 498 ( H.C.Bom) 2. Rajeev Locha…

JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd ( Formelry Known As Transworks Information Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground

ITA 610/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Rupinder Bror CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…before us the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest expenditure should not be disallowed in relation to loan given to subsidiaries based on commercial expediency: 1.Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd ( 56ITR 52 ) (SC) 2.India Cements Ltd (60 ITR 52) (SC) 3.S.A. Builders Ltd. ( 288 ITR 1) (SC) 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure: 1. Shrishti Securities 321 ITR 498 ( H.C.Bom) 2. Rajeev Locha…