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

M/S. Bajaj Foods Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the ground of appeal no

ITA 2276/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36

…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 I ,<d. - 313 ITR 340 (Bom); > Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT - 298 ITR 298 (SC); In light of the above, impugned disallowance deserves to be deleted.” On the other hand ld. departmental representative has placed reliance on the decision of ld. CIT(A). I.T.A No. 2276/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 4 M/s. Bajaj Foods Ltd. vs. ITO 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the maternal on record carefully. In respect of…

M/S. Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The ACIT., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 450/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…TR 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. < IT - 298 ITR 298 (SC). We observe that it has been demonstrated from the above material on record that the assessee was having sufficient interest free fund in the form of share capital and free reserves as against the investment made from wich exempt income was earned. After considering the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities…

Sharma Cars Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-8, Now Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1655/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1655/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sharma Cars P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.8 “Kayakalp”, N.H. No.8 Vs Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad 382330. Pan: Aadcs 0305 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri T.P. Hemani & Shri P.B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, and Shri P.B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…, 354 ITR 630 (Guj) iii) CIT Vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd., 352 ITR 583 (Guj) iv) CIT Vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd., 41 taxmann.com 540 (Guj) v) CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) vi) Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT, 298 ITR 298 (SC) 14. Since the assessee has more interest free funds with it than the one advanced by it, therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Power Corporation (supra) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that no disallowance out of interest expenditure deserves to be made…

Yamir Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle - 8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 534/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.534/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Yamir Packaging P.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cir.8 11, Yes House Ahmedabad. Shivalik Plaza Opp: Ama, Iim Road Polytechnic, Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan Aaacy 0728 N.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…R 630 (Guj); > CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. - 352 ITR 583 (Guj); > CIT vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I). Ltd. - (2014) taxntann.com 540 (Guj); > CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. - 313 ITR 340 (Bom); 5 > Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT - 298 ITR 298 (SC); On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon order of the AO. 7. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. As far as the calculation of interest expenditure for capitalization under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act representing the expenses for acquiring machinery before it be put to actual user is concerne…

Prabhakar Mishra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-44, Kolkata

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

ITA 2255/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2255/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prabhakar Mishra -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aezpm 7452 B ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A T Varkey, JM, & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 2255/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prabhakar Mishra -vs- DCIT, Circle-44, Kolkata [PAN: AEZPM 7452 B ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. CIT Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 24.10.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Ap…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Dlf Hotel Holding Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1012/2018HC Delhi28 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…Page 5 of 6 in S.A. Builders Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and in Munjal Sales Corporation versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC). The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Limited (supra) held as follows:- “24. In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to Section 36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is “for the purpose of business”. It has been consistently held in decisions relating to Section 37 that…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Dlf Hotel Holding Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-1012/2018HC Delhi28 Sept 2018
Section 36(1)(iii)

…Page 5 of 6 in S.A. Builders Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and in Munjal Sales Corporation versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC). The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Limited (supra) held as follows:- “24. In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to Section 36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is “for the purpose of business”. It has been consistently held in decisions relating to Section 37 that…

Nayan T. Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1005/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Nayan T Shah, Dcit, Flat No.501, 5Th Floor, Circle-23(3), बनाम/ Rajyog Residency, (Now Dcit Circle-29(2), Vs. Near Vardhman Nagar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Dr. R.P. Road, Bandra (East), Mulund (West), Mumbai Mumbai-400080 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aahps3290B

Section 144Section 41(1)Section 44A

…ns given by the assessee. 11. Ad interim reply of the ld. AR was that the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd. (supra) was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corpn. v. CIT [2008] 298 ITR 298/168 Taxman 43 (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 &…

M/S.Ecoplast Ltd., Valsad vs. Dy.Cmmissioner of Income Tax, Valsad Renge, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 943/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.943/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ecoplast Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of S.No.309, National Highway Income Tax, No.8, Water Works Cross Road, Valsad Range, Abrama, Valsad – 396 001. Valsad – 396 001. [Pan: Aaace 5030 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Tushar P. Hemani – Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri J.K.Chandnani – Sr.Dr 12.07.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 01.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Circle, Valsad (In Short “The Ao”) Dated 17.02.2015 Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

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

…Ecoplast Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Valsad Range, Valsad/I.T.A. No.943/AHD/2016/SRT/A.Y.:2012-13 Page 1 of 9 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "याियक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.943/AHD/2016/SRT िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ecoplast Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of S.No.309, National Highway Income Tax, No.8, Water Works Cross Road, Valsad Range, Abrama, Valsad – 396 001. Valsad – 396 001. [PAN: AAACE 5030 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Re…

M/S Emm Kay Industries Limited, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 674/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 673 & 674/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 31(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…lacs and 1093.23 lacs respectively (PB pg. 13/AY 2007-08 and PB pg. 6/AY 2008-09). Besides, reliance was placed by him on various decisions, including by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court viz. Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT [2008] 298 ITR 298 (SC); Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 381 ITR 107 (P&H); CIT v. Kapsons Associates [2016] 381 ITR 204 (P&H). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. A perusal of the audited balance-sheets reveal that the only borrowed capital on which interest stands suffered by the assessee for the relevant years is by way…

M/S Emm Kay Industries Limited, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 673/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 673 & 674/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 31(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…lacs and 1093.23 lacs respectively (PB pg. 13/AY 2007-08 and PB pg. 6/AY 2008-09). Besides, reliance was placed by him on various decisions, including by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court viz. Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT [2008] 298 ITR 298 (SC); Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 381 ITR 107 (P&H); CIT v. Kapsons Associates [2016] 381 ITR 204 (P&H). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. A perusal of the audited balance-sheets reveal that the only borrowed capital on which interest stands suffered by the assessee for the relevant years is by way…

Lalamal Sangamlal Seth Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 15(1), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.6663/Del

ITA 6663/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Rachh, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. D.R

…h Games flat, there arises no question of making any further disallowance of interest expenditure as alleged by the A.O. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC) in which it was held that “when opening balance is sufficient to give small loans to the sister concern and profit earned during the relevant assessment year were also sufficient to cover the impugned loan, no disallowance should be made.” He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vi…

Lalamal Sangamlal Seth Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 15(1), C R Building, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.6663/Del

ITA 4540/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Rachh, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. D.R

…h Games flat, there arises no question of making any further disallowance of interest expenditure as alleged by the A.O. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC) in which it was held that “when opening balance is sufficient to give small loans to the sister concern and profit earned during the relevant assessment year were also sufficient to cover the impugned loan, no disallowance should be made.” He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vi…

M/S. the Jampeta Co- Op Urban Bank Ltd, Rajahmundry vs. The Joit CIT, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & The Jampeta Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Urban Bank Ltd., Jampeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaaat 4048 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Ravi Shankar Narayan, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 16Section 45

…the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed as deduction while computing the income from business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT (2008)(298 ITR 298) has observed that section 40(b)(iv), which allows payment of interest to partners, have to be read along with section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence both section 36(1)(iii) and section 40(b)(iv) of the Act go together. (h) The term “Capital borrowed” signifies that there is a liability to repay the capital so borrowed. In the case of Pepsu Road Tr…

The Aryapuram Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Rajahmundry vs. The ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 177/VIZ/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

…the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed as deduction while computing the income from business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT (2008)(298 ITR 298) has observed that section 40(b)(iv), which allows payment of interest to partners, have to be read along with section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence both section 36(1)(iii) and section 40(b)(iv) of the Act go together. (h) The term “Capital borrowed” signifies that there is a liability to repay the capital so borrowed. In the case of Pepsu Road Tr…

The Jampeta Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Rajahmundry vs. The ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 510/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & The Jampeta Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Urban Bank Ltd., Jampeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaaat 4048 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Ravi Shankar Narayan, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 16Section 45

…the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed as deduction while computing the income from business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT (2008)(298 ITR 298) has observed that section 40(b)(iv), which allows payment of interest to partners, have to be read along with section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence both section 36(1)(iii) and section 40(b)(iv) of the Act go together. (h) The term “Capital borrowed” signifies that there is a liability to repay the capital so borrowed. In the case of Pepsu Road Tr…

The ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry vs. M/Sthe Aryapuram Co-Oprative Urban Bank Ltd., Rajahmundry

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/VIZ/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

…the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed as deduction while computing the income from business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT (2008)(298 ITR 298) has observed that section 40(b)(iv), which allows payment of interest to partners, have to be read along with section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence both section 36(1)(iii) and section 40(b)(iv) of the Act go together. (h) The term “Capital borrowed” signifies that there is a liability to repay the capital so borrowed. In the case of Pepsu Road Tr…

The Aryapuram Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Rajahmundry vs. The ACIT, Rajahmundry

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 173/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

…the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed as deduction while computing the income from business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT (2008)(298 ITR 298) has observed that section 40(b)(iv), which allows payment of interest to partners, have to be read along with section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence both section 36(1)(iii) and section 40(b)(iv) of the Act go together. (h) The term “Capital borrowed” signifies that there is a liability to repay the capital so borrowed. In the case of Pepsu Road Tr…

Aryapuram Co=Op. Urbank Ltd., Rajahmundry vs. The ACIT, Rajahmundry

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 517/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

…the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed as deduction while computing the income from business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT (2008)(298 ITR 298) has observed that section 40(b)(iv), which allows payment of interest to partners, have to be read along with section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence both section 36(1)(iii) and section 40(b)(iv) of the Act go together. (h) The term “Capital borrowed” signifies that there is a liability to repay the capital so borrowed. In the case of Pepsu Road Tr…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1905/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1905/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Sabarkantha Circle Vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Op. Himatnagar. Milk Producers Union Ltd. Sabar Dairy, Sub Post Boriya Himatnagar 383 006. Pan : Aaaas 5265 L

For Appellant: Shri Y.H. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…-आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1905/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Sabarkantha Circle Vs. Sabarkantha District Co-op. Himatnagar. Milk Producers Union Ltd. Sabar Dairy, Sub Post Boriya Himatnagar 383 006. PAN : AAAAS 5265 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri Y.H. Shah, AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15/03/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronou…