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 367,368 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 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

Shubh Shanti Services Limited, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T (OSD), Cir - 5, Kolkata

ITA 650/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2009-10 Shubh Shanti Services V/S. Jcit,(Osd), Circle-5, Ltd. 31, Netaji Subash Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Square, 700 001 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aagcs 9381 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5, V/S. M/S Shubh Shanti P-7, Chowringhee Services Ltd., 31, Netaji Square, Kolkata-69 Subhas Road, Kolkata-01 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e has advanced its non interest bearing funds only to the above parties as per hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 (Bom) as well as hon'ble apex court’s judgment in Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC). The assessee’s instant second substantive grievance is accepted. We notice that it has also filed its additional technical ground(s) in petition dated 01.06.2016. The same are rendered academic as we have accepted its main substantive ground on merits itself. 11. Learned counsel representing assessee inform us he is not pressing for its th…

D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata vs. M/S Shubh Shanti Services Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 2074/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Ganesh Bhaskarrao Manedeshmukh, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 928/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pawan V. AutiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…re own interest free funds are more than the loans and advances no disallowance of interest is to be made. In support of his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 215 CTR 105 (SC); ii. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 379 ITR 347 (SC); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd., 178 Taxman 135 (Bombay). 4. On the other hand Shri Achal Sharma representing the Department vehemently defended the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the addition. The…

DCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 14A

…d to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans. ” 8. Further we note that the aforesaid ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. A. Builders (supra) were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the later judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Munjal Corporation 298 ITR 298 (SC) and Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. CIT 63 taxman.com 308. Applying the ratio laid in the aforesaid judgments, we note that there was business connection between assessee and the companies to whom advances were made for undertaking projects in the field of real estate and civil infrastructure. Since the assessee was an active participant in the project…

ITO, Sunam Hq Sangrur vs. M/S Shree Bhagwati Rice Mills, Khanouri

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of

ITA 1279/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak AnandFor Respondent: Sh. J.K. Garg

Section 145(3)

…the assessee submitted that the assessee has its own capital of Rs. 72,62,060/- and if the interest component is calculated @12% it would also amount to Rs. 8,71,440/-. Ld. AR further relied on the judgments in case of M/s Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT 215 CTR 105 for the proposition that interest free loan if less than the own funds, no disallowance is called for. Similarly in case of TATA Chemical Ltd. Vs. ACIT 138 ITD 458 Mumbai ITAT held that the Addition of notional interest towards borrowing is not justified where assessee’s own fund were sufficient to cover the loan given to certain parties. 8.…

ACIT, Cir-31, Kolkata vs. Smt Shyama Devi Dalmia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 429/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 429/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit Cir 31 Kolkata..............................………………………………….......................Appellant 10B, Middleton Row, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071 Smt. Shyama Devi Dalmia...……………………………………………………............Respondent 5, Ajc Bose Road,, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Agbpd 5911 E] Appearances By: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Sr. Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 9, Kolkata Dated 31.12.2015 Whereby He Deleted The Addition Of Rs. 53,46,249/- Made By The A.O. By Way Of Disallowance Of Interest.

Section 143(3)

…made therein and Hon'ble ITAT in the Appeal No. I.T.A.No.:1588/Kol/2010 vide order dated 24th day of April 2014 confirmed the deletion in favour of the Appellant Assessee. The reliance in the case was placed on Munjal Sales Corporation v CIT & Another [2008] 298 ITR 298 (SC) and CIT v Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Since the case of the Appellant Assessee for addition of Rs.53,46,249/- towards payment of interest on Loan taken on fixed deposits from The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. is squarely covered and settled in earlier year, the addition made by the Ld. A.O. is bad in law and we request…

M/S. Sunil Kumar Kundu, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Siliguri, Sirliguri

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1566/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 1564 To 1566/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Snehangshu Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ns taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest-free fund generated or available with the company, if the interest- free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. “ (ii) Munjal Sales Corporation, Petitioner Vs. CIT 298 ITR 298 (SC) wherein it was held that the profits earned by the assessee during the relevant year were sufficient to cover the loan given to sister concern. Impliedly it was held that profits earned during the previous year should also be considered as interest free fund available. (iii) CIT Vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (DEL) If the assessee has substan…

Anand Rathi Capital Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7543/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7543, 7544, 7515 & 7546/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Capital Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Advisors P. Ltd, 47A, 3Rd R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Floor, Plot No. 308 Air India Building, Vs. Hanuman Bldg, Perin Nariman Point, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacr2791N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…he assessee for making interest free advances, though, in context of disallowance of interest on borrowed capital under Sec. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, had been looked into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal sales Corporation Vs. CIT & Anr. (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed as under: “17. One aspect needs to be mentioned during the asst. yr. 1995-96, apart from the loan given in August/September 1991, the assessee advanced interest free loan to its sister concern amounting to Rs. 5 lacs. According to the Tribunal, there was nothing on record to show that the loans w…

Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7527 & 7526/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Global Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Finance Ltd., 4Th Floor, R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Silver Metropolis Bldg., Air India Building, Vs. Western Express Highway, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabcr1136N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 153A

…the assessee for making interest free advances, though in context of disallowance of interest on borrowed capital under Sec. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, had been looked into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal sales Corporation Vs. CIT & Anr. (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed as under: “17. One aspect needs to be mentioned during the asst. yr. 1995-96, apart from the loan given in August/September 1991, the assessee advanced P a g e | 15 ITA Nos. 7514,7526,7527,7543,7544,7546 & 7469 to 7474/Mum/2016 M/s Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd., Vs. DCIT Cen. Cir.-5(1) interes…

M/S Mittal Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 734/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…288 ITR 1, no disallowance out of the interest can be made. Further, when in earlier years, no disallowance is made, the same cannot be made in the subsequent years as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT & ANR. (2008) 298 ITR 298 where it is held that “once it was found that interest free loans granted by assessee to its sister concerns in August/September, 1991, continued upto asst. yr. 1997-98 and that the said loans were advanced out of its own funds for business purposes and that the interest paid thereon did not exceed the rate prescribed under s. 40(b)(iv), assessee…

Vishal Engineers & Galvanizers, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-6, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1108/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1108/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri T.P. hemani, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Sonia Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…Energy Ltd., 354 ITR 630 (Guj) CIT Vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd., 352 ITR 583 (Guj) 3 CIT Vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions India ltd., 41 taxmann.com 540 (Guj) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT, 298 ITR 298 (SC) 5. The ld.DR on the other hand relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. 6. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from record that the assessee has sufficient interest free funds which can take care of the alleged investment in the assets. Therefore, no interest ought to ha…

Sri Pradeep Raj Jindal, Hisar vs. ITO, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampat & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…’ble Supreme Court. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is set aside to the AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales 3 Corporation reported in 298 ITR 298 and Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. reported in 379 ITR 347. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the disallowance made by the AO. Therefore, the same should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival argument…

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, the ground no

ITA 10/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 244A

…of tax is allowance. 3.5 Recently this view has been taken by the Hon’ble ITAT M/s Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT in ITA No. 2230/Ahd/2010 vide order dated 20.09.2013 (DPB 38-43) following the decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation v/s CIT (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC). 3.6 On this aspect also kindly refer decision ACIT v/s Ramkishan Verma (2012) 143 TTJ (Jp) (UO) 1 (DPB 10-22) wherein, para 9.5 the relevant portion is as under: “We have heard both the parties. The assessee is having sufficient capital. If there are mixed funds then non-interest-bearing funds are to be considered s utilized for non-inter…

Shri Purshottam B. Pitroda, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Range -12, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 351/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 44A

…54 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) Respectfully, following the ITAT order and above judgments no part of the interest deserves to be disallowed u/s.14A. 5.5 Rest of the Grounds are general in nature. Shri Purshottam B. Pitroda vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2009-10 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 22/08/2017 एन.क…

Shri Pramod Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Hapur

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

ITA 530/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini

Section 143(1)

…n out of interest free funds i.e. sundry creditors of Rs.3,15,75,611/- and net profit earned during the year i.e. 5,55,678/-. In this respect, we rely on the following judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court: M/s Munjal Sales Corporation vs CIT and Another [2008] 298 ITR 298 (SC).” 3. The AO however, did not find merit in the explanation of the assessee and disallowed Rs.5,50,852/-. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs H.R.Sugar Pvt. Ltd. [1991] reported in 187 ITR 363 (All.). 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted a…

Orissa Air Products Pvt. Ltd., Dhenkanal vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 6/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri T.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Orissa Air Products (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), NH-42, Gundicha Pada, Bhubaneswar. Dhenkanal. PAN/GIR No. AAACO 6590 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri T.K.Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR Date of Hearing : 17 /05/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 18 /05/ 2017 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 8.9.2016, for the assessment year 2012-2013 . 2. Ground No.1 of the appeal is directed…

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA Nos.1007/Bang/2016 and 1030/Bang/2016 are allowed, and ITA

ITA 1028/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III(DR)(ITAT-3)

Section 14A

…he I.T. Rules. The ld. counsel for the assessee further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Microlabs, 383 ITR 490 (Kar) and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT, 298 ITR 298 (SC) in support of his contention that if the investments were made out of mixed funds and own funds and own funds are sufficient to cover the tax free investments, then presumption will be only that the investments were made out of own funds. Since the assessee was having sufficient personal funds, the AO ought to have examined this aspect befo…

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA Nos.1007/Bang/2016 and 1030/Bang/2016 are allowed, and ITA

ITA 1007/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III(DR)(ITAT-3)

Section 14A

Virender Kumar Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6293/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Virender Kumar Gupta, Nai Anaj Mandi, Ward-4(5), Gurgaon. Farrukhnagar. Pan: Abtpg 0018L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : S/Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & P.K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-I, Gurgaon, Vide Order Dated 14.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ven to the financial institutions by the assessee to the effect that it would provide additional margin to M/s. Hero Fibres Limited to meet the working capital for meeting any cash loses” 6. The decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corpn. vs. CIT reported in 298 ITR 298 was also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and relevant decision in paragraph 17 is reproduced hereinbelow: “17. One aspect needs to be mentioned during the assessment year 1995-96, apart from the loan given in August/September 1991, the assessee advanced interest- free loan to its sister concern amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3441/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinsdia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 147oSection 263Section 43Section 43BSection 44A

…est on the ground that assessee had sufficient funds which was interest free advances given to its subsidiary. He also relied upon various decision including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT reported in (2008) 298 ITR 288 Page 11 of 14 wherein the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (supra) has been reversed. 13. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of relevant finding given in the impugned order, we find that the proportionate disallowance of interest of Rs. 97,42,800/- has been made by the Assessing Of…