Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT

118 ITR 200Supreme Court of India1979#826 most cited

What is Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT authority for?

Interest on borrowed funds is deductible as a business expense under section 36(1)(iii) if incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, not for sentimental or personal reasons. The phrase 'for the purpose of business' is broader than 'for the purpose of earning income'.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT · section 36(1)(iii) · business expenditure · commercial expediency · interest on borrowed funds · deduction · purpose of business · earning income · broader scope

Also reported as

10 CTR 375

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 14ASection 148Section 133(6)Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituresection 92batrue and full disclosuresanction under section 151deletion of penaltytransfer pricing orderinterest free advancesfresh tangible materialsection 148(2)sanctioning authoritysection 57(iii)specified domestic transaction

Judgments citing Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT

M/S. Kalyan Awas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. D-25, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 328/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K.. Gupta , CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the business. It is not also necessary that profits should be earned by such expenditure, nor is it necessary that it should be expended directly for the purposes of business so long as the business indirectly profits. (c) Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) Borrowing must be for the purpose of business: The expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of making of earning income" (d) CIT Vs. Sales Megnesite (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1/81 Taxman 33 (Bom.) Commercial expediency must be decided from businessman’s p…

M/S. Kalyan Awas Vikas Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 327/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K.. Gupta , CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the business. It is not also necessary that profits should be earned by such expenditure, nor is it necessary that it should be expended directly for the purposes of business so long as the business indirectly profits. (c) Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) Borrowing must be for the purpose of business: The expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of making of earning income" (d) CIT Vs. Sales Megnesite (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1/81 Taxman 33 (Bom.) Commercial expediency must be decided from businessman’s p…

Sagar Realtors Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 956/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 36(1)(iii)

…for business purposes, therefore, assessee is entitled for deduction of the interest. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions : (1) Ram Kishan Oil Mills vs., CIT, U.P. [1965] 56 ITR 186 (2) Madhav Prasad Jatia vs., CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC) (3) Regal Theatre vs., CIT [1997] 225 ITR 205 (Del.) (4) CIT vs., Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria [1994] 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) 8 ITA.No.956/Del./2019 M/s. Saga Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (5) CIT-8 vs., M/s. Srishti Securities Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 498 (Bom.) (6) CIT vs., Spencers And Co., Ltd., (No.3) [2013] 359 ITR 644 (Mad.) (7) CIT vs., RPG…

SHI vs. Agar Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1554/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…interest are (i) money must have been borrowed by the assessee, (ii) it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business, and (iii) the assessee must have paid interest on the said amount and claimed it as deduction - See Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 at p. 208. …. The learned Judges held that the view taken by the ITO was unsustainable, that as had been pointed out by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ram Kishan Oil Mills v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 186, the only conditions required to be satisfied in order to enable the assessee to claim deduction in respect of interest under section 10(2)(iii) of t…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Tips Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6291/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ss expediency hence, amount/loan/fund diverted to related person having element of interest is to be taken into consideration for disallowance. For this propositions reference may be had of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT 118 ITR 200(SC). It can be seen from the set of facts that in spite of giving good rent of Rs.4,50,000/- per month to the wives of the Directors, such huge amount of Rs.9 crores has been given for no business purposes. Thus, fund has been given to the wives of the Directors without charging of interest hence, corresponding interest expenditure is disallowabl…

Tips Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6196/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ss expediency hence, amount/loan/fund diverted to related person having element of interest is to be taken into consideration for disallowance. For this propositions reference may be had of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT 118 ITR 200(SC). It can be seen from the set of facts that in spite of giving good rent of Rs.4,50,000/- per month to the wives of the Directors, such huge amount of Rs.9 crores has been given for no business purposes. Thus, fund has been given to the wives of the Directors without charging of interest hence, corresponding interest expenditure is disallowabl…

Tips Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6195/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ss expediency hence, amount/loan/fund diverted to related person having element of interest is to be taken into consideration for disallowance. For this propositions reference may be had of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT 118 ITR 200(SC). It can be seen from the set of facts that in spite of giving good rent of Rs.4,50,000/- per month to the wives of the Directors, such huge amount of Rs.9 crores has been given for no business purposes. Thus, fund has been given to the wives of the Directors without charging of interest hence, corresponding interest expenditure is disallowabl…

Tips Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6194/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ss expediency hence, amount/loan/fund diverted to related person having element of interest is to be taken into consideration for disallowance. For this propositions reference may be had of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT 118 ITR 200(SC). It can be seen from the set of facts that in spite of giving good rent of Rs.4,50,000/- per month to the wives of the Directors, such huge amount of Rs.9 crores has been given for no business purposes. Thus, fund has been given to the wives of the Directors without charging of interest hence, corresponding interest expenditure is disallowabl…

Kanakia Spaces Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed for

ITA 7288/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta with Shri Govind Javeri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai ( Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…. 7288, 7289 Mum 17 & 209 and 210 Mum 18-M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. this presumption was established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Therefore, interest was deductible. In the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for claiming deductions u/s 36(1)(iii), the basic requirements are: (a) the money i.e. (capital) must have been borrowed by the assessee; (b) it must have been borrowed by the assessee for his business, profession or vocation; and (c) the assessee must have paid interest on the amount and…

Sanghi Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2925/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.942/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Respondent: Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘सी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी "द"प कुमार के"डया, लेखा सद"य एवं महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2925/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.942/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively) Sanghvi Infrastructure Ltd. The Dy.CIT बनाम/ 10th Floor, Kataria Arcade Circle-8 Vs. Off:S.G.Highway Ahmedabad Makarba,Ahmedabad-380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AALCS 2163A .. (अप…

Sanghi Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2925/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2925/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.942/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Respondent: Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘सी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी "द"प कुमार के"डया, लेखा सद"य एवं महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2925/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.942/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively) Sanghvi Infrastructure Ltd. The Dy.CIT बनाम/ 10th Floor, Kataria Arcade Circle-8 Vs. Off:S.G.Highway Ahmedabad Makarba,Ahmedabad-380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AALCS 2163A .. (अप…

ACIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA (Before Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, CC-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/s. Snowtex Investment Ltd. PAN: AAECS 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee/department by : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, ld.DR Respondent/assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Sr. Advocate, ld.AR Date of Hearing : 30-01-2019 Date of Pronouncement: 27-02 -2019 ORDER Per Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M.: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Powerlinks Transmission Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Powerlinks Transmission Ltd., 10Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Circle 20(1), New Delhi. Distt. Centre, Jasola, New Delhi. Pan: Aabct7775M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoneet Dalal, Shri Vishu Goel & Shri Dipanshu Mutreja, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th January, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Transmission Of Electricity. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.28,76,36,810/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Its Revised Return On 28Th September, 2012 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Unabsorbed Depreciation. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2)/142(1) Were Issued. The Assessing Officer, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Asked The Assessee To Explain The Claim Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Iii) On Account Of Interest & To Furnish The Information Regarding Details Of Investments Made As On 31.03.2011 & 31.03.2012

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal, Shri Vishu Goel &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 ACIT, Vs. Powerlinks Transmission Ltd., 10th Floor, DLF Tower-A, Circle 20(1), New Delhi. Distt. Centre, Jasola, New Delhi. PAN: AABCT7775M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manoneet Dalal, Shri Vishu Goel & Shri Dipanshu Mutreja, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 08.02.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 20th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Powerlink Transmission Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 3870/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Manoneet Dalal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…agreement with the lenders of capital. As per the agreement, the appellant was compulsorily to keep a deposit in the bank and not withdraw it. 6.3 The appellant has quoted the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT, AIR 1979 SC 1291: 118 ITR 200, 208. 6.4 The judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Reliance Utility & Power Ltd. as well as Woolcombers of India Ltd. and of the apex court in the case of East India Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has held that if there are funds available with the appellant then the presumption would arise that investment would be out of interest free funds…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Powerlink Transmission Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 3869/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Manoneet Dalal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…agreement with the lenders of capital. As per the agreement, the appellant was compulsorily to keep a deposit in the bank and not withdraw it. 6.3 The appellant has quoted the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT, AIR 1979 SC 1291: 118 ITR 200, 208. 6.4 The judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Reliance Utility & Power Ltd. as well as Woolcombers of India Ltd. and of the apex court in the case of East India Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has held that if there are funds available with the appellant then the presumption would arise that investment would be out of interest free funds…

Kanakia Spaces P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6686/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Acit, Central Circle- Ltd. 215 Atrium, 10Th Floor, 4(1), Air India Vs. Near Marriot Courtyard Building, 19Th Floor, Hotel, Andheri-Kurla Road, Nariman Point, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Mumbai. 400093. Pan No. Aaack2629J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 24

…sufficient to meet the investments. In this case, this presumption was established M/s Kanakia Spaces 9 considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Therefore, interest was deductible. In the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for claiming deductions u/s 36(1)(iii), the basic requirements are: (a) the money i.e. (capital) must have been borrowed by the assessee; (b) it must have been borrowed by the assessee for his business, profession or vocation; and (c) the assessee must have paid interest on the amount and c…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…ons of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.: 53 ITR 140. The apex Court reiterated the same approach in the following cases: • CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning. & Weaving Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) • Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT : 118 ITR 200 (SC) In the present case, sharing of MSIL resources by group/ subsidiary companies providing insurance services was only meant to promote the purpose of MSIL’s business and hence the entire expenditure incurred by the company was allowable as deduction. The Ld. AR further submitted that since the entire expenditure as incurred by the assessee wh…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3125/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

…he purpose of business' occurring in section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope that the expression 'for the purpose of. making or earning income' occurring in section 57 (Hi): The assessee relied upon the decision in the case of Mahadev Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC), Eastern Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT(1951) 20 ITR 51 (SC), and other decisions as mentioned at page 3 &4of its reply dated 14.3.2014". With utmost regards to the Hon'ble Court and the case laws cited by the assessee company in its above submission but I beg to differ from the same because after going through the above submissions of the assessee…

M/S. Menora Developers & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2716/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

…he purpose of business' occurring in section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope that the expression 'for the purpose of. making or earning income' occurring in section 57 (Hi): The assessee relied upon the decision in the case of Mahadev Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC), Eastern Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT(1951) 20 ITR 51 (SC), and other decisions as mentioned at page 3 &4of its reply dated 14.3.2014". With utmost regards to the Hon'ble Court and the case laws cited by the assessee company in its above submission but I beg to differ from the same because after going through the above submissions of the assessee…

Savatex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1030/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1030/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Savatex Private Ltd., बिाम/ Ito 2(3)(2) Mehta House, 79-91, Mumbai Mumbai Samachar Marg, V. Fort, Mumbai 400001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacs0729B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V Justin,DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…io of income earned vis-a-vis expenditure incurred while making disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii). The expression “for the purpose of business” is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning income, profits and gains”- Medhav Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC). b. As per the Proviso to clause (iii) of sec. 36(1) , interest of the period from the date of capital borrowed till the asset was first put to use, will not be allowable as deduction if the capital was borrowed for acquisition of an asset. In the case of assessee, Rs. 3.67 crore of the capital borrowed was used partially for enhancing the %…