Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CIT

193 ITR 344High Court1992#8444 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 2(28A)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 57(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(iii)disallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 36(1)section 36section 37section 14acompanyindiatotal incomeinterestsection 14

Judgments citing Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CIT

GAYATRI ENERGY VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 467/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas & CA Swapnil DeshukhFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

…k of business activities has all ingredients of "commercial expediency", is on the appellant. There are various case laws which supports this contention viz. CIT Vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport P. Ltd.61 ITR 480 (Mad), Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. CIT,193 ITR 344 (Ori), CIT Vs Abhishek Ind (P&H) 286 20 ITA.No.467/Hyd./2025 ITR1. In the case of R. Dalmia Vs. CIT 133 ITR 169 (Del.) the Hon'ble High Court decided that "Where the interest paid concerns the borrowed money for business as well as non business purposes, the claim may be disallowed in its entirety if no adequate material is adduced by the asses…

CHIMANLAL MANEKLAL SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 127/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri Om Kandalkar,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Kiran Unavekar, (Sr. DR)
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…(79\ntaxmann.com 158) etc. Regarding assessee's contention that the\nassessee's own funds and other non interest bearing funds were more\nthan investment in shares, he placed reliance on CIT vs. V.I.Baby & Co.\n(254 ITR 248),Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs CIT 193 ITR 344 (Ori) etc.\nConsequently, he worked put disallowance of in terms of Rule 8D\nclauses(ii) and (iii) of Rs.14,88,472/- and Rs 5,23,647 respectively. The\nld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made, placing reliance on the case of\nGodrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT &Anr., (2010) 328 ITR 0081, the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court.\n4. The ld.DR has relied on t…

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…come-tax Officer was right in disallowing the difference of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act and that the Tribunal's approach is not only superficial but too naïve”. 14.6 In the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 344, the Orissa High Court held as under (page 349): M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore Page 42 of 79 ‘’... it may be pointed out that, in a hypothetical case, an assessee can earn profits only after the date of investment and advance. It cannot be said that because, in the concerned assessment year, the profit was more than the investment…

GUARDIAN NUTRITION & HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6738/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Guardian Nutrition & Health Supplements Vs DCIT, Circle 10(2), Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. A-258, Phase-I, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020. PAN:AACCG2848K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.11.2022 Date of pronouncement 21.11.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commiss…

NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED (ON BEHALF OF MERGED ENTITY VADINAR OIL TERMINAL LIMITED) ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 777/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.777/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nayara Energy Ltd (On Acit, Central Circle-2(1) बिधम/ Behalf Of Merged Entity Room No. 804, Pratishtha Vs. Vadinar Oil Terminal Ltd) Bhavan, Old Cgo 5Th Floor, Jet Airways Annexe, M. K. Road, Godrej Bkc, G- Block, Plot Mumbai-400020. C-68, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2626D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 36(1) (Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act The Act - Rs.149.80 Crores 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) & Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.149.80 Crores Pertaining To Loans Of Rs.1253.53 Crores Granted To Related Parties Contending Them To Be Interest Free Without Appreciating The Fact, That Out Of The Total Amount, Only Security Deposits Of Rs.96.53 Crores Are Interest Free Refundable

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 37

…he said decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case reported 52 ITR 165. The Delhi High Court decision in the case of R Dalmia Vs. CIT (133 ITR 169) and the Orissa High Court decision in the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. CIT (193 ITR 344) also support the above proposition. In this connection, reliance is also placed on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Phalton Sugar Works Limited Vs CIT 208 ITR 989 the operative part of the said judgement is reproduced as under: “Section 36(1) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides for deduction for payment of interest only…

HDFC BANK LTD (SUCCESSOR TO BUSINSS OF CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 14A

…Society Ltd vs ACIT ITXA 328 of 2014, ITXA 372 of 2014 and other appeals 5. Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co Ltd vs DCIT and Another (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom) 6. CIT vs Abhishek Industries Ltd (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H) 7. Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd vs CIT (1992) 193 ITR 344(Orissa) 17. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the assessee submitted, the availability of surplus interest free fund has to be seen on the date of balance- sheet and not on the date of investment. He submitted, the presumption of availability of interest free fund can only trigger if the assessee has mixed pool of funds on the date of bal…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF UTILITIES LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4156/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4156/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Dlf Utilities Ltd., 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Tax, Circle-7(1), New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn3199A Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…y diverting it as interest free loans or loans on lower rate of interest. 6. He relied on the following case laws: " Sarabhai Sons P. Ltd. Vs CIT 201 ITR 465 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Sujani Textiles P. Ltd. 151 ITR 653 (Mad.) " India Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs CIT 193 ITR 344 " CIT Vs Abishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 (P&H) 7. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition on the grounds that the amounts extended as loan are neither colorable nor illusionary transactions and since the monies have been rightly used for the purpose of the business no disallowance is warranted. 8. Before us during the arguments, the ld. DR vehem…

KULODAY TECHNOPACK P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3300/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

…164 : (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Ker), CIT vs, Motor General Finance Ltd. (2002) 173 CTR (Del) 123 : (2002) 254 ITR 449 (Del), CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All), Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 344 (Ori), CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (1991) 190 ITR 349 (All), S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. (2004) 269 ITR 535 (P&H), CIT vs. Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. (1993) 110 CTR (All) 23: (1993) 201 ITR 181 (All), Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 989 (Bom), Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 122 CTR (Bom) 3…

M/S MOIRA STEEL LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 593/IND/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 593/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Moira Steel Limited, Vs. Dy. Cit, Shanivar Darpan Press 1(1), Complex, Indore. A.B. Road, Indore अपीलाथ" / अपीलाथ" /Appellant अपीलाथ" / अपीलाथ" / ""यथ" / ""यथ" /Respondent ""यथ" / ""यथ" / "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aabcm2051K अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Shri C.P.Rawka, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/ ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By ""यथ" क" ओर से/ ""यथ" क" ओर से/ Shri Mohd. Javed, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing सुनवाई क" तारीख/ सुनवाई क" तारीख/ सुनवाई क" तारीख/ 02.03.2017 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/ उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/ उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/ 03.03.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / आदेश /O R D E R आदेश / आदेश /

Section 143(3)

…Court in the case of CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Limited, (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All) and also placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Motor General Finance Limited, 254 ITR 449 (Del), Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Limited vs. CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 344 (Orissa) and Phalthan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CWT, (1994)208 ITR 989 (Bom). 1.2 Being aggrieved with the order, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) noted that initially the assessee replied that the loans and advances are related to business, but when the AO asked to specify the nature of business…

DCIT CIRCLE-6 (1), NEW DELHI vs. LATTU FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground against addition u/s 68 of the Act is set aside to the A

ITA 2922/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2004-05 Dy.Cit, Circle 6(1) Vs. M/S Lattu Finance & Investment Ltd. New Delhi (Now Known As Minda Investment Ltd.) 36 A, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar Delhi

For Appellant: Sh.R.S.Negi, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh.Pradeep Dinodia and Sh. RK Kapoor, C.As
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…gar Factory (P) Ltd. 187 ITR 363, where it has been held that if parts of the funds have been utilized for non business purposes, part disallowances of interest is justified. g) the ratio of the decision in the case of India Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. CIT 193 ITR 344, where it was held that it is for the assessee to prove that the borrowed fund has been utilized for business purposes. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing.” 5. We have heard Shri Pradeep Dinodia, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Shri R.S.Negi, the Ld.Sr.D.R. o…

P.SUNDARARAJAN,AVANASHI vs. DCIT, TIRUPPUR

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

ITA 1666/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1666/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…wing the difference of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act and that the Tribunal's approach is not only superficial but too naïve’’. I.T.A.No.1666/Mds/2013. :- 24 -: 14.6 In the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 344, the Orissa High Court held as under (page 349): ‘’... it may be pointed out that, in a hypothetical case, an assessee can earn profits only after the date of investment and advance. It cannot be said that because, in the concerned assessment year, the profit was more than the investment and advance, those came only out of the profit. The actual…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARTI TELEVENTURE LTD

ITA - 1340 / 2010HC Delhi03 Jan 2011
Section 260ASection 36(1)(iii)

…2011:DHC:11160-DB ![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) ## IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ## ITA No. 1337/2010, 1339/2010 & 1340/2010 Date of Order: 3rd January, 2011 % COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI ...APPELLANT Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. Versus BHARTI TELEVENTURE LTD. QUTAB AMBIENCE, H-5/12, MEHRAULI ROAD, NEW DELHI ...RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Kaanan Kapur, Advocate. **CORAM:** HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.MEHTA - 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? - 3. Whether th…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARTI TELEVENTURE LTD

ITA - 1339 / 2010HC Delhi03 Jan 2011
Section 260ASection 36(1)(iii)

…![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) ### IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ## ITA No. 1337/2010, 1339/2010 & 1340/2010 Date of Order: 3rd January, 2011 % # COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I. NEW DELHI ...APPELLANT Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. Versus BHARTI TELEVENTURE LTD. QUTAB AMBIENCE, H-5/12, MEHRAULI ROAD, NEW DELHI ...RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Kaanan Kapur, Advocate. ### CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.MEHTA - 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the judgment should…