How many judgments cite Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT?

191 judgments on BharatTax cite Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT (298 ITR 298), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(iii), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 250, Section 32(1)(ii), Section 11.

Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT

298 ITR 298Supreme Court of India2008#492 most cited

What is Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court approves the mixed fund theory, holding that no interest disallowance is warranted under section 36(1)(iii) if investments or advances are made from the assessee's own non-interest bearing funds, even when mixed funds are available. This presumption applies when non-interest bearing funds are sufficient to meet the investments.

191

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,359 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Munjal Sales Corporation v CIT · 298 ITR 298 · Section 36(1)(iii) · disallowance of interest expenditure · mixed fund theory · interest free advances · non-interest bearing funds · business expediency · Section 14A disallowance · rule of consistency

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 250 Section 32(1)(ii)Section 11 Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

interest free advances section 36(1)(iii)business expediency disallowance of interest expenditure rule of consistency disallowance u/s 14a section 36 section 36(1)section 14a disallowance under section 14a double taxation section 37

Judgments citing Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT

Rohit Mehndiratta, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

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

ITA 69/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 69/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Rohit Mehndiratta, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. Sham Sales Corporation, Shop Ward-2, No. 30-31, Palika Bazar, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adfpm9745Q Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Aneja, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. J. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2016 Order

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. J. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…assessee has its own capital also to manage its own affairs so penalty wrongly imposed. Case Law Supported Commission of Income Tax V/s Vijay Solvese Ltd. 2015,274CTR(Raj), 384 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Munjal Sales Corporation V CIT & another 2008,298 ITR 298(S.C) have also held That the Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that the loan given was from assessee's own funds. 4 Rohit Mehndiratta Therefore the A.O without bringing the case in the four corners of law have imposed penalty which is against the facts & circumstances of the case wrong & illegal. In the present case A.O merely on the basis o…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jsr Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 875/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Geoerge & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 144

…reply of the ld. AR was that the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries (supra) was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Munjal Sales ITA Nos. 875 & 741/Bang/2014 Page 6 of 20 Corporation v. CIT, 298 ITR 298 (SC) and the said decision stood overturned. 12. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Interest free funds available with assessee as on 31.3.2007 and 31.3.2008 were as under:- Particulars 31.03.2008 31.03.2007 Share Capital 60,62,000 60,62,000 Reserves & Surplus 16,93,24,161 15,32,96,877 Loans from Directors & Sharehol…

Jsr Constrctions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl..C.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 741/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Geoerge & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 144

Uma Dutt Paliwal Prop., Panipat vs. Addl. CIT, Panipat

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4626/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Uma Dutt Paliwal, Vs Addl. Cit, Prop. Paliwal Home Furnishing, Karnal. Panipat. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50C

…stantiate his stand that surplus funds were available with the assessee for making the interest free advance of Rs. 4.50 lacs to M/s Victory Enterprises. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation vs CIT 298 ITR 298 (S.C.). 4. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly supported the Assessing Officer’s order and that of the I.T.A. No. 4626/Del/2011 Assessment year 2008-09 Ld. CIT (A). After going through the relevant records and hearing the rival contentions on this issue, it is seen that the main reason for disallowance of pro-rat…

Pahilajrai Jaikishan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…2012 for the assessment year 2009-10, the two important decisions of the Hon’ble Court/Tribunal were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, namely: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT (2008) 168 Taxman 43(SC) : 298 ITR 298(SC). & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 2. Ahmedabad Tribunal decision in the case of Shankar Chemicals Works v. DCIT (2011) 12 taxmann.com 461(Ahd.). While the assessee firm , inter-alia, brought to the notice of the Tribunal, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. R.M.Chidambaram Pillai (1977) 106 ITR 292(SC) which is a decision pronounce…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. E.I.H. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…l pending before the Supreme Court as on date. Hence the decision in 288 ITR 1 (SC) is very much applicable as on date until the judgement in Tulip Star Hotels Ltd is pronounced by the Supreme Court. g) Munjal Sales Corporation vs CIT and Another reported in 298 ITR 298 (SC) h) CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (BOM) ITA Nos. 2182/Kol/06, 57, 1876 & 1846/Kol/07, 196 & 299/Kol/2010 DCIT,Cir-8, Kol Vs. M/s. E I H Ltd 24 i) Recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in (2015) 63 taxmann.com 308 (SC) dated 5.11.2015. The operative po…

Majestic Hotels Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for Ay 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 6260/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C.M.Garg, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A Y: 2008-09

For Appellant: Rajeev Mango, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. C.M.GARG, JM AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM A Y: 2008-09 DCIT Vs Majestic Hotels Ltd., Circle 6 (1), G-82, Lajpat Nagar-II New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACM9066F A.Y. 2010-11 Majestic Hotels Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT G-82, Lajpat Nagar-II Range-6 New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACM9066F Assessee by: Rajeev Mango, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 06 .11.2015 ORDER Per Prashant Maharishi, AM: 01. These are the two appeals relating to the assessee for assessment year 2008-09…

ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pattani Opticals & Contact Lens Clinic, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6061/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Shah

Section 143(3)

…ars of 2007-08 and 2008-09 in assessee’s own case, the Tribunal vide its orders in ITA No.1818/Mum/12 dated 03/1/2014 has deleted the disallowance, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 3 case of Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT, 298 ITR 298(SC). Against such decision the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before me it was a common point between the parties that the precedent relied upon by the CIT(A) continue to hold the field as the same has not been altered by any higher authority and, therefore, the issue is liable to be decided in the light of such precedent. There is…

Brigade Enterprises Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1275/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…(Appeals) on an appreciation of the material on record found that the non- interest bearing funds or the assessee's own funds are far in excess of the advances and deposits made during the year. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Munjal Sales Corporation V CIT (2008) 298 ITR 298 deleted the disallowance of interest claimed as a deduction, inter alia, for the reason that the opening balance / profit for the year are sufficient to cover the loans and advances given. Para 17 of the said order reads as under : “17. One aspect needs to be mentioned during the Assessment Year 1995-96, apart from the loan given in August / Sept…

Punjab Stainless Steel Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VII & Anr

ITA/47/2008HC Delhi14 May 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Appellant: Mr Satyen Sethi, Mr Johnson Bara & Mr A T PandaFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal

…ot the source of the funds but the purpose for which the advances were extended. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Munjal Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Another : (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC). In that case it was held by the Tribunal that the assessee had given interest free loan in the assessment year 1992-93, out of its own funds and not from interest bearing loan taken by the firm from the third party and, consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 36(i)(iii) of the Act. It was observed…