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 367,368 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 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

interest free advancessection 36(1)(iii)business expediencydisallowance of interest expenditurerule of consistencydisallowance u/s 14asection 36section 36(1)section 14adisallowance under section 14adouble taxationsection 37

Judgments citing Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT

First Overseas Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5242/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 First Overseas Capital Limited, Dcit-1(1)(2), Ground Floor, Bhupen Room No. 533/579, 5Th Floor, Chambers, Dalal Street, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400001 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl4337A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K Gopal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Pinishetty Satya Prasanth (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2021

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Pinishetty Satya Prasanth (DR)
Section 143(3)

…n ITA No. 47 of 2008, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed as under:- “The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT & Anr. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 105 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 217 : (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC). In that case it was held by the Tribunal that the assessee hail given interest-free loan in the asst. AY 1992-93, out of its own funds ax not from interest bearing loan taken by the firm from the third party and, consequently the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was observed by the Supreme Court th…

Pragati Glass Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 261/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.261/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pragati Glass Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Income V Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), Tax, Circle-1, Vadadora. S. Dist. Bharuch-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp7377H (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, C.AFor Respondent: ShriDependra Kumar– Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.261/SRT/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pragati Glass Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner of Income V Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), Tax, Circle-1, Vadadora. s. Dist. Bharuch-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCP7377H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by :Shri Surendra Modiani, C.A Respondent by : ShriDependra Kumar– Sr.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 27/10/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AC…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Shalivahana Green Energy Limited, Secunderabad

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

ITA 1120/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivas
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…t the assessee has sufficient own funds which is more than the funds advanced as loans to the seven parties under commercial expediency. The learned Authorised Representative relied on the following decisions : a. Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT reported in 298 ITR 298 (Supreme Court). b. CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 410 ITR 466 (Supreme Court) c. Principal CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co., Ltd reported in 423 ITR 220 (Bombay High Court) d. BSPN Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad in ITA No.2008/Hyd/2018 7. On the rejoinder, the learned DR submitted that the case laws relie…

Kumar Agro Products Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 14(4), Pune

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

ITA 556/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora / Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…JCIT Vs. M/s. Mbharat Fritz Werner Ltd, ITAT, Bangalore. 3) PCIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co., Ltd 423 ITR 220 (Bom) 4) CIT(LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC). 5) CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) 6) Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT - 298 ITR 298 (SC). 6. The next limb of Ld.A.R.’s argument is that the disallowance, if any, should be restricted to the extent of only incremental advances made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In this connection, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sridevi Enterpris…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sabarkantha Circle, Himatnagar vs. The Sabarkantha District Co.-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Himatnagar

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2401/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

…deposits with cooperative banks and since the funds were mixed funds the presumption was that the said deposits were made out of own non interest bearing funds. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Mungal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 and decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340. Keeping these facts and the case laws in view, Ld. CIT(A) held that it was not required to look into the source of the funds. The plain language of section did not speak of any such adjustment. The only requirement was that income should be received fro…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1766/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…4 ITR 630 (Guj) > CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. - 352 ITR 583 (Guj) > CIT vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I). Ltd. - (2014) 41 taxmann.com 540 (Guj) > CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. - 313 ITR 340 (Bom) > Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT - 298 ITR 298 (SC) The ld. counsel also submitted that assessee was having substantial interest free funds than the investment. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has supported the order of lower authorities and contended that Assessing Officer has made dissatisfaction on the action of the assessee of not making disallowance according to pr…

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1757/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…4 ITR 630 (Guj) > CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. - 352 ITR 583 (Guj) > CIT vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I). Ltd. - (2014) 41 taxmann.com 540 (Guj) > CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. - 313 ITR 340 (Bom) > Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT - 298 ITR 298 (SC) The ld. counsel also submitted that assessee was having substantial interest free funds than the investment. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has supported the order of lower authorities and contended that Assessing Officer has made dissatisfaction on the action of the assessee of not making disallowance according to pr…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Tally Solutions Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/952/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.199 OF 2017 C/W I.T.A. NO.951 OF 2017 & I.T.A. NO.952 OF 2017 I.T.A. NO.199 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1) BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NO.331-336,…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Tally Solutions Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/951/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.199 OF 2017 C/W I.T.A. NO.951 OF 2017 & I.T.A. NO.952 OF 2017 I.T.A. NO.199 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1) BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NO.331-336,…

Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S Tally Solutions Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/199/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.199 OF 2017 C/W I.T.A. NO.951 OF 2017 & I.T.A. NO.952 OF 2017 I.T.A. NO.199 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1) BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NO.331-336,…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Wipro Limited

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

ITA/464/2017HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260ASection 32

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.464 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(5), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. WIPRO LIMITED DODDAKANNELLI SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU-560025 PAN: AAACW0387R. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. GANESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV., FOR SRI. R.B. KRISHNA, A…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2324/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC) and other various ITAT decisions. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has passed a speaking and reasonable order while relying on the various decisions as cited supra and accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the same by dismissing the grounds of the revenue relating to deletion of disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 13. For A.Y. 2010-11 the Ld…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2322/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC) and other various ITAT decisions. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has passed a speaking and reasonable order while relying on the various decisions as cited supra and accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the same by dismissing the grounds of the revenue relating to deletion of disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 13. For A.Y. 2010-11 the Ld…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2325/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC) and other various ITAT decisions. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has passed a speaking and reasonable order while relying on the various decisions as cited supra and accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the same by dismissing the grounds of the revenue relating to deletion of disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 13. For A.Y. 2010-11 the Ld…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2323/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC) and other various ITAT decisions. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has passed a speaking and reasonable order while relying on the various decisions as cited supra and accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the same by dismissing the grounds of the revenue relating to deletion of disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 13. For A.Y. 2010-11 the Ld…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2321/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC) and other various ITAT decisions. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has passed a speaking and reasonable order while relying on the various decisions as cited supra and accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the same by dismissing the grounds of the revenue relating to deletion of disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 13. For A.Y. 2010-11 the Ld…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2320/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC) and other various ITAT decisions. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has passed a speaking and reasonable order while relying on the various decisions as cited supra and accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the same by dismissing the grounds of the revenue relating to deletion of disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 13. For A.Y. 2010-11 the Ld…

M/S. Mittal Clothing Company, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2308/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 250

…n’ble Supreme Court in case of Munilal Sales Corporation vs CIT reported in decision relied upon by Ld.CIT(A) of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the same has been reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Munilal sales Corporation vs CIT reported in 298 ITR 288. 13. Respectfully following the above view, the view taken by Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be reversed. We direct Ld.AO to delete the disallowance of interest made under section 36(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs.27,59,642/-. Accordingly grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 2825/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 37(1)

…assessee to show that sufficient funds are available to the assessee (PB-32) along with bank statement and submitted that Judgment in the case of Abhishek Industries (supra) have been overruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munzal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 (SC) and the issue is now covered by Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 wherein it was held that “presumption is that advances are from own funds.” 5.4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The A.O. noted in the assessm…

M/S Acb (India) Power Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 82/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…s were not put to use at least during the year under consideration. The decisions relied upon by the ld. DR in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd is of no good as the same has been over ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corpn. 298 ITR 298. 18. Similarly, in the case of Mahindra World City Developers Ltd 107 Taxmann.com 16, the quarrel was in respect of proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act vis a vis section 145A of the Act. On the same lines, the other judicial decisions are also clearly distinguishable. 19. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, the assessee has succes…