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 367,154 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, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Kakinada Sez Private Limited, R.R.Dist

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1012/HYD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Kakinada Sez Pvt. Ward-2(1), Ltd., Hyderabad. Shamshabad. Pan: Aacck 5670 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue By: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

…, ITAT decision in the case of M/s. Tirumala Hydel Power Projects Ltd in ITA No.640V/2004, Continental Construction Ltd vs. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 81/60 Taxman (SC), H.K. (Investment) Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 511 (Guj.), India Cement Ltd vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC), CIT vs. Sri Ram Honda Power Equipment reported in 289 ITR 501 (Delhi), J.F. Laboratories Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 96 ITD 448 (Mumbai). However, the Ld. AO was of the view that since the assessee had taken loan from the bank for acquisition of land and development of the project by virtue of section 57(iii) of the Act, the intere…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4793/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 80I

…asset. According to the Commissioner, since the loan was raised for securing capital asset, the interest incurred thereon constituted part of capital expenditure. This finding of the Commissioner was erroneous. In the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 , it was held by the Supreme Court that in cases where the act of borrowing was incidental to carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset. That, for the purposes of deciding the claim of deduction under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 [section 36(1)(iii) of the present Income-tax Act], it was irrelevant to consider th…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4187/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 80I

…asset. According to the Commissioner, since the loan was raised for securing capital asset, the interest incurred thereon constituted part of capital expenditure. This finding of the Commissioner was erroneous. In the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 , it was held by the Supreme Court that in cases where the act of borrowing was incidental to carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset. That, for the purposes of deciding the claim of deduction under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 [section 36(1)(iii) of the present Income-tax Act], it was irrelevant to consider th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4436/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…asset. According to the Commissioner, since the loan was raised for securing capital asset, the interest incurred thereon constituted part of capital expenditure. This finding of the Commissioner was erroneous. In the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 , it was held by the Supreme Court that in cases where the act of borrowing was incidental to carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset. That, for the purposes of deciding the claim of deduction under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 [section 36(1)(iii) of the present Income- tax Act], it was irrelevant to consider t…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 4061/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…asset. According to the Commissioner, since the loan was raised for securing capital asset, the interest incurred thereon constituted part of capital expenditure. This finding of the Commissioner was erroneous. In the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 , it was held by the Supreme Court that in cases where the act of borrowing was incidental to carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset. That, for the purposes of deciding the claim of deduction under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 [section 36(1)(iii) of the present Income- tax Act], it was irrelevant to consider t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ifci Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1359/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…n in respect of expenses incurred on issue of bonds since they pertained to raising of money which is stock in trade of the assessee and was revenue in nature. Following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in India Cements Ltd vs CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52(SC) and judgment of the Honourable High Court of Madras in Lakshmi Vilas Bank vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 93 the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the deduction. In view of this the order of the learned CIT – A is confirmed on this ground and ground of appeal is dismissed. 28 Ground number 7 is against the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 3,837,672 on account of c…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ifci, New Delhi

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2934/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…n in respect of expenses incurred on issue of bonds since they pertained to raising of money which is stock in trade of the assessee and was revenue in nature. Following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in India Cements Ltd vs CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52(SC) and judgment of the Honourable High Court of Madras in Lakshmi Vilas Bank vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 93 the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the deduction. In view of this the order of the learned CIT – A is confirmed on this ground and ground of appeal is dismissed. 28 Ground number 7 is against the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 3,837,672 on account of c…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cornerstone Property Investments Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1083/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra. CIT DR
Section 14A

…arned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order and in this regard, she also submitted that in Para 4..7 of his order, learned CIT (A) has noted about two judgments of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 60 ITR 52 and in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 74 ITR 753 and also noted about a judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Secure Meters Ltd. Ltd. as reported in 175 Taxman 567 and deleted the disallowance of interest made by the AO by following these three judgments but this was her argument that in…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cornerstone Property Investments Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1082/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra. CIT DR
Section 14A

…arned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order and in this regard, she also submitted that in Para 4..7 of his order, learned CIT (A) has noted about two judgments of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 60 ITR 52 and in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 74 ITR 753 and also noted about a judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Secure Meters Ltd. Ltd. as reported in 175 Taxman 567 and deleted the disallowance of interest made by the AO by following these three judgments but this was her argument that in…

DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

ITA 1202/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-15(2)(1) M/S Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 357, 3Rd Floor, A-1, Ashian Sector-17, Vashi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 705 Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaack3955F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopati, D.RFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…tituted a capital asset. According to the CIT, since the loan was raised for securing capital asset, the interest incurred thereon constituted part of capital expenditure. This finding of the CIT was erroneous. In the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that in cases where the act of borrowing was incidental to carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset. That, for the purposes of deciding the claim of deduction under s. 10(2)(iii) of DCIT-15(2)(1) Vs. M/s Kalsha Builders Pvt. ltd. 8 ITA No. 1202/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 the IT Act, 1922 [s. 36(…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3356/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3356/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R

…nual recurring expenditure incurred by the assessee. Guarantee fee was payable to Govt. of Gujarat every year in respect of loans taken by the assessee and guaranteed by the Govt. of Gujarat. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd., 60 ITR 52 (SC), loan cannot be treated as asset or advantage resulting in enduring benefits. Guarantee fees paid to Govt. of Gujarat was in connection with raising of loans and enduring benefit or advantage could not be said to have resulted by taking such loans. Only if the assets acquired out of such loans were not put-to-use till the end of previous year…

Lift & Shift India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6631/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Lift & Shift India Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle 96, Chembur Mankhurd Link 7(1) Road, Shivaji Nagar Mumbai Mumbai – 400 043 Pan/Gir No. Aaccb6406A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…import and the actual date of payment resulted in loss and the same was claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure on a bonafide belief by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Cements Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 60 ITR 52 (SC) wherein it was held that the purpose for which the funds have been utilised is not relevant. The entire factual matrix of assessee availing buyers credit facility from bank for importing equipments together with the workings for exchange rate difference thereon were duly placed on record before the lower authorities. During the course of proce…

Imperial Consultants & Securities Ltd. (Formerly Known As Omperial Consultants & Securities Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT -6 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3529/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Imperial Consultants & Dcit, Circle - 6(3)(1) Securities Ltd. Room No. 506, 5Th Floor (Formerly Imperial Consultants & Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Securities P. Ltd) Vs. Mumbai 400020 Manickam Complex, Gr. Floor 1/3, General Paters Roadchennai 600002 Pan – Aaacg4413G Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle - 6(3)(1) M/S. Imperial Consultants & Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Securities Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Essar House, 11, Kk Marg Mumbai 400020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034 Pan – Aaacg4413G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56Section 57

…which is chargeable to tax under s. 56.— Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 101 CTR'-(SC) 386 : (1992) 195 ITR 81 (SC), U.K. (Investment) Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 121 CTR (Guj) 470 : (1995) 211 ITR 511 (Guj) and India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) relied on; Ms. Ila R. Ambani (ITA Nos. 4340 & 9341/Bom/90, dt. 30th Sept., 2004) and Srnt. Padmavati Jaiknshna vs. Addl CIT (1987) 62 CTR (SC) 14 : (1987) 166 ITR 176 (SC) distinguished; Mandideep Engineering & Packaging Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 71 TTJ (Ind) 954 : (2001)77 ITD 307 (Ind) not followed.” 13. We also find merit in th…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3925/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathatata Motors Ltd. Vs. The Cit(Ltu) 29Th Floor, Centre 1 Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Hutatma Chowk Cuffe Parade Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 37(1)

…t. Further, the learned CIT failed to consider the relevant CBDT Circular No 56 dated 19.03.1971 providing that any expenditure on issue of debentures admissible u/s 37(1) of the Act, placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in case of India Cement Ltd (60 ITR 52), is not covered under section 35D of the Act. 2.4 The learned CIT has erred in law and on facts in concluding that the said expenditure is in the nature of raising loan to finance the extension of the business inasmuch as the said expenditure is incurred for raising loan on account of refinancing the loan taken in earlier years. 2.5 Without prejud…

DCIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6387/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit- 2(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Financial Room No.552, Solutions Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 106, A/B, Makers Chambers M.K.Road, Mumbai Iii Jamanalal Bajaj Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaar7043R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.216/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6387/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S. Tata Motors Vs. Dcit- 2(3)(1) Financial Solutions Ltd., Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 106, A/B, Makers Chambers Iii M.K.Road, Mumbai Jamanalal Bajaj Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaar7043R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…37(1) of the Act observing that the same is capital in nature and the corresponding fund being used for acquisition of capital assets. The appellant, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements (60 ITR 52) as also in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (225 ITR 802)(SC). It is the fact and not disputed by the AO that what has been raised is a loan and therefore, it is the liability of the assessee. Such liability acquired by way of loans, debentures, commercial papers cannot be considered to be an asset by any stretch of…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Mukerian Papers Ltd

ITA/408/2006HC Punjab & Haryana14 Nov 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Section 35DSection 37Section 37(1)Section 43(1)

…wed by the Assessing Officer. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), who in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT ( 60 ITR 52 ) and one C.B.D.T’s Circular No.56, held that the expenditure relatable to the public issues of non-convertible debentures qualifies for deduction u/s 37 of the Act and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow such deduction. The Commissioner of POOJA SHARMA 2019.11.22 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.408…

M/S.Baby Memorial Hospital Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kozhikkode

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

ITA 420/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 115JSection 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 37(1)

…xpenditure being capital or revenue does not depend on the purpose for which foreign currency loan was obtained or on nature of ultimate utilization of loan amount. The same was also affirmed by Apex court in case of India Cements Limited vs. CIT (1966) (SC) 60 ITR 52. 8.4 It is to be noted that liability to pay or to provide for loss on account of foreign currency fluctuation does not arises at the time of obtaining/raising foreign currency loan but the same was incurred subsequently on devaluation of currency which is an independent event having no control over it by the assessee. The same currency fluctuat…

Pawansut Dwellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 317/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: S/shri. Uttam Chand Bothra&
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 57

…documentary proofs while deciding the above matter. 8. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as under the circumstances of the case in not considering the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. 60 ITR 52 (SC) referred to by your appellant which held that interest on borrowed money be allowed on the basis of its usages and not on the basis of object for which the money is borrowed.” 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company had e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.09.2012, declaring its total income at Rs. 23,68,010/-. The return of inc…

The Bhavnagar Salt & Industrial Works Pvt.Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1951/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…te on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, shall not be allowed as deduction. The appellant ahs relied on the decision of hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) in support of its contention “….that a loan obtained cannot be treated as an asset or an advantage for enduring benefit of business of assessees and a loan is a liability and has to be repaid and a liability cannot be considered as an asset or an advantage…..”. Reliance by the appellant on this case is totally misplaced as the facts of the abo…

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result we affirm the order of ld CIT(A) id affirmed and

ITA 5378/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Hindustan Petroleum The Addl.Cit, Range-1(1), Corporation Ltd., Mumbai 17, Jamashedji Tata Road, V/S Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaach1118B Appellant Respondent

Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…im by ITAT: a) National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) (SC) b) Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) Case Laws on Merits of the Claim: a) CIT vs. Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd (255 ITR 345) (Gujarat High Court) b) India Cements Ltd Vs. CIT (60 ITR 52) (SC) c) Hindustan Milk Food Manufacturers Ltd Vs. CIT (179 ITR 302)(P&H HC)” 3. The revenue in its cross appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to allow the claim of deduction u/s.80IB in respect of VREP-II unit. 1.1. The ld. Ld. CI…