Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

20 SOT 40Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#10312 most cited

What is Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Expenditure, including interest, incurred for acquiring a controlling interest in a subsidiary company is not deductible as it is not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. The income earned from such investments is not considered business income.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. ACIT · 20 SOT 40 · section 14A · controlling interest · subsidiary company · interest expenditure · business expenditure · non-business income · disallowance

Sections most often in play

Section 14A

Judgments citing Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Palchin Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2553/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram & Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose t. Kottaram (CIT
Section 14ASection 270A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2553/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT-3(2)(1) बिधम/ M/s. Palchin Real Estate Room No. 608, 6th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Road, Mumbai-400020. Centre, Minood Desai Marg Colaba, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCP4365P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K. Shivram & Rahul Hakani Revenue by: Shri Solgy Jose t. Kottaram (CIT, DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date…

Mani Market Creators Limited, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1904/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2019AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n. It is an established legal position that any expenditure including interest incurred for acquiring controlling interest is not deductible. In this regard reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in the cases of Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2008) 20 SOT 40 (Mum.) and CIT Vs. Smt. Amritaben R. Shah (1999) 238 ITR 777 (Bom.), wherein it was held that interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds utilized in investment of shares of subsidiary company for acquiring controlling interest could not be allowed as the same was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Accordingly, I…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sun Tv Net Work Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1579/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jayanthi Krishnan, CIT
Section 37

…w the expenditure incurred for earning the income which does not form part of total income. 11. The Ld. Departmental Representative has also placed her reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2008) 20 SOT 40 and submitted that acquiring controlling interest in subsidiary companies is not part of 11 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/15 I.T.A. Nos.1577 to 1579/Mds/15 the business of the assessee. Therefore, the interest income earned by the assessee cannot be allowed as business expenditure. 12. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and p…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sun Tv Net Work Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1578/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jayanthi Krishnan, CIT
Section 37

…w the expenditure incurred for earning the income which does not form part of total income. 11. The Ld. Departmental Representative has also placed her reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2008) 20 SOT 40 and submitted that acquiring controlling interest in subsidiary companies is not part of 11 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/15 I.T.A. Nos.1577 to 1579/Mds/15 the business of the assessee. Therefore, the interest income earned by the assessee cannot be allowed as business expenditure. 12. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and p…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sun Tv Net Work Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1577/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jayanthi Krishnan, CIT
Section 37

…w the expenditure incurred for earning the income which does not form part of total income. 11. The Ld. Departmental Representative has also placed her reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2008) 20 SOT 40 and submitted that acquiring controlling interest in subsidiary companies is not part of 11 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/15 I.T.A. Nos.1577 to 1579/Mds/15 the business of the assessee. Therefore, the interest income earned by the assessee cannot be allowed as business expenditure. 12. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and p…

Sun Tv Network Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1341/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jayanthi Krishnan, CIT
Section 37

…w the expenditure incurred for earning the income which does not form part of total income. 11. The Ld. Departmental Representative has also placed her reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2008) 20 SOT 40 and submitted that acquiring controlling interest in subsidiary companies is not part of 11 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/15 I.T.A. Nos.1577 to 1579/Mds/15 the business of the assessee. Therefore, the interest income earned by the assessee cannot be allowed as business expenditure. 12. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and p…

Sun Tv Network Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1340/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jayanthi Krishnan, CIT
Section 37

…w the expenditure incurred for earning the income which does not form part of total income. 11. The Ld. Departmental Representative has also placed her reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2008) 20 SOT 40 and submitted that acquiring controlling interest in subsidiary companies is not part of 11 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/15 I.T.A. Nos.1577 to 1579/Mds/15 the business of the assessee. Therefore, the interest income earned by the assessee cannot be allowed as business expenditure. 12. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and p…

Jagkumar & Co. Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO., Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6152/MUM/2011[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.6151 To 6153 & 6123/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण "नधा"रण "नधा"रण वष" "नधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years :1994-95 To 1997-98) वष" Jagkumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai 10/11, Prospect Chambers, Annexe-317-21, D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 1367 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By क" क" ओर ओर : Shri Sameer G. Dalal राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 06/11/2015 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: This Order Shall Govern The Disposal Of Four Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)], Mumbai, Relating To Assessment Years 1994-95 To 1997-98, On The Following Grounds :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Disallowing The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Under Section 80Ia Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Submits That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Salary Register Was Not Authentic & In Concluding That The Appellant Had Failed To Bring Any Material On Record To Rebut The Statement Of The Director Made During The Survey Operations Ignoring The Submission Made In Appellate Proceedings & In Holding That The Order Of The Pto A Government Authority Was Self Serving & That The Conditions Of S.80Ia Were Thus Not Satisfied.”

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO.” 4. A perusal of the above reproduced observation of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has categorically held and distinguished the case of Shri Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 20 SOT 40, holding that the controversy as to the issue of classification of workers is not arising from the facts of the present case. It has also been observed by the Tribunal that in the case of “Shri Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal had taken a very much wider view by holding that all the employees/workers connected with the manufacturing proce…

Jagkumar & Co. Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO., Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6151/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.6151 To 6153 & 6123/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण "नधा"रण "नधा"रण वष" "नधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years :1994-95 To 1997-98) वष" Jagkumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai 10/11, Prospect Chambers, Annexe-317-21, D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 1367 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By क" क" ओर ओर : Shri Sameer G. Dalal राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 06/11/2015 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: This Order Shall Govern The Disposal Of Four Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)], Mumbai, Relating To Assessment Years 1994-95 To 1997-98, On The Following Grounds :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Disallowing The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Under Section 80Ia Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Submits That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Salary Register Was Not Authentic & In Concluding That The Appellant Had Failed To Bring Any Material On Record To Rebut The Statement Of The Director Made During The Survey Operations Ignoring The Submission Made In Appellate Proceedings & In Holding That The Order Of The Pto A Government Authority Was Self Serving & That The Conditions Of S.80Ia Were Thus Not Satisfied.”

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO.” 4. A perusal of the above reproduced observation of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has categorically held and distinguished the case of Shri Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 20 SOT 40, holding that the controversy as to the issue of classification of workers is not arising from the facts of the present case. It has also been observed by the Tribunal that in the case of “Shri Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal had taken a very much wider view by holding that all the employees/workers connected with the manufacturing proce…

Jagkumar & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6123/MUM/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.6151 To 6153 & 6123/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण "नधा"रण "नधा"रण वष" "नधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years :1994-95 To 1997-98) वष" Jagkumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai 10/11, Prospect Chambers, Annexe-317-21, D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 1367 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By क" क" ओर ओर : Shri Sameer G. Dalal राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 06/11/2015 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: This Order Shall Govern The Disposal Of Four Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)], Mumbai, Relating To Assessment Years 1994-95 To 1997-98, On The Following Grounds :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Disallowing The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Under Section 80Ia Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Submits That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Salary Register Was Not Authentic & In Concluding That The Appellant Had Failed To Bring Any Material On Record To Rebut The Statement Of The Director Made During The Survey Operations Ignoring The Submission Made In Appellate Proceedings & In Holding That The Order Of The Pto A Government Authority Was Self Serving & That The Conditions Of S.80Ia Were Thus Not Satisfied.”

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO.” 4. A perusal of the above reproduced observation of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has categorically held and distinguished the case of Shri Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 20 SOT 40, holding that the controversy as to the issue of classification of workers is not arising from the facts of the present case. It has also been observed by the Tribunal that in the case of “Shri Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal had taken a very much wider view by holding that all the employees/workers connected with the manufacturing proce…

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (20 SOT 40) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax