Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax

208 ITR 989High Court1994#2123 most cited

What is Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax authority for?

Interest paid on borrowed capital is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) only when the capital is used for the assessee's own business, not if advanced to a subsidiary company. This restrictive view was later overruled by the Supreme Court.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax · 208 ITR 989 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest on borrowed capital · advances to subsidiary · commercial expediency · business expediency · deductibility of interest · limited interpretation · overruled decision

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 1961Section 10(34)Section 250Section 68Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 40(a)(2)(b)section 36(1)(ii)interest free advancessection 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencycolourable devicesection 57(iii)put to usesection 36(1)business expediencysection 36section 10(34)

Judgments citing Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax

M/S Avantika Infraventure (P) Ltd., Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 23/VNS/2020[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 234ASection 36

…What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

M/S Avantika Infraventure (P) Ltd., Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 22/VNS/2020[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 234ASection 36

…What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

Nayara Energy Limited (on Behalf of Merged Entity Vadinar Oil Terminal Limited), Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 777/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.777/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nayara Energy Ltd (On Acit, Central Circle-2(1) बिधम/ Behalf Of Merged Entity Room No. 804, Pratishtha Vs. Vadinar Oil Terminal Ltd) Bhavan, Old Cgo 5Th Floor, Jet Airways Annexe, M. K. Road, Godrej Bkc, G- Block, Plot Mumbai-400020. C-68, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2626D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 36(1) (Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act The Act - Rs.149.80 Crores 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) & Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.149.80 Crores Pertaining To Loans Of Rs.1253.53 Crores Granted To Related Parties Contending Them To Be Interest Free Without Appreciating The Fact, That Out Of The Total Amount, Only Security Deposits Of Rs.96.53 Crores Are Interest Free Refundable

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 37

…igh Court decision in the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. CIT (193 ITR 344) also support the above proposition. In this connection, reliance is also placed on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Phalton Sugar Works Limited Vs CIT 208 ITR 989 the operative part of the said judgement is reproduced as under: “Section 36(1) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides for deduction for payment of interest only if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. The business of the subsidiary company cannot be considered in law as the business of the assessee. The finding of the Tribunal…

Jurasic Refiners & Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Jurassic Finance & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 256/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37(1)Section 73

…the contrary, which gave a limited interpretations to the scope of the phrase "for the- purposes of business or profession" used in section 36(l)(iii). This decision overruled the Bombay High Court decisions in the case of Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Reported in 208 ITR 989 and 215 ITR 582, and approved the Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377. Subsequent to this decision of the Apex Court, the Dept. filed an SLP against the Delhi High Court's decision in Addl. CIT vs Tulips Star Hotels Ltd. reported in 338 ITR 482 wherein the High Court had held that the interest liabil…

Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd, Chennai vs. JCIT, Company Range II, Chennai

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

ITA 204/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. I.T.A. No. 204/Chny/2019 29. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

Deepak Nagindas Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-19 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7032/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Deepak Nagindas Shah, Acit, Circle – 19(1), 506-B, Walkeshwar Chandanwala 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Chs Ltd. 4, R. R. Thakkar Road, Tardeo Road, Walkeshwar, Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aaqps1861H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Suchek Anchaliya (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Rajni Roy (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2021

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Rajni Roy (DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we 6 Assessment Year: 2014-15…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1663/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…ot really relevant. What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 32. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT [1994] 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…ot really relevant. What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 32. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT [1994] 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited., Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1120/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…ot really relevant. What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 32. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT [1994] 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1745/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…ot really relevant. What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 32. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT [1994] 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

Mason Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3409/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)

…is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 32. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1994) 208 ITR 989. in which it was held that deduction under section 36(1)(/7V) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 976/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…act is not really relevant. What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency . 32. Learned counsel for the revenue relied on a Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT [1994] 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1042/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…act is not really relevant. What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency . 32. Learned counsel for the revenue relied on a Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT [1994] 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Kunnel Engineers & Contractors P. Ltd, Kochi

ITA 653/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 43B

…288 ITR 1) (SC) 3. CIT vs. V.I. Baby and Co. (254 ITR 248) (Ker.) 4. Madhav Prasad Jantia vs. CIT (AIR 1979 SC 129) 5. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC) 6. CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (38 ITR 601) (SC) 7. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CWT (208 ITR 989) (Bom.) 8. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CWT (215 ITR 582) (Bom.) 9. CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (254 ITR 377) (Del.). 10. CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140) (SC) 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the assessee has not established in the cash flow statements about the availability of e…

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Forbes & Co.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5536/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Vice-And Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave (AR)For Respondent: Shri S C Tiwari (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 37(1)Section 40

…at the issue is also covered by the latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Industries reported in [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer relied upon the decision Phalatan Sugar Works Ltd. (208 ITR 989), which has been reversed in S.A. Builders vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)]. 25. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue submits that this issue may be sent back to the Assessing Officer for examination, if the assessee has sufficient interest free funds available with them. 26. We have considered the submission of the parties and gone through t…

Sampat Aluminium Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 808/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…Page No 4 Sampat Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Jan-10 0 8050000 80500 Feb-10 27269779 35319779 353197.8 Mar-10 20447828 55767607 557676.1 TOTAL 1253874 Reliance is also placed on the following decision: PHALTAN SUGAR WORKS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 208 ITR 989 (Bom), wherein it has been held as under: Held : Sec. 36(1)(iii), provides for deduction for payment of interest only if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. The business of the subsidiary company cannot be considered in law as the business of the assessee. The finding of the Tribunal based on commercial expediency appears to be inc…

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

…ot really relevant. What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 32. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT [1994] 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under section 36(l)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

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

…ot really relevant. What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 32. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT [1994] 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under section 36(l)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…

Ashar Realators, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1914/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1914/M/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Ashar Realtors बिधम/ Acit, Circle-23(2), 2Nd Ashar It Park, Gr. Floor, Floor, C-10, Bandra Kurla Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Complex, Bandra Mumbai- Industrial Estate, Pokhran 400051. Rd No.2, Thane (W) 400601 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfa1708J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1914/M/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Ashar Realtors बिधम/ ACIT, Circle-23(2), 2nd Ashar IT Park, Gr. Floor, Floor, C-10, Bandra Kurla Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Complex, Bandra Mumbai- Industrial Estate, Pokhran 400051. Rd No.2, Thane (W) 400601 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHFA1708J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rahul Hakani (AR) Department by: Shri V. Vidyadhar (DR) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 01.03.2018 घोषणाकीता…

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

…t really relevant. What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. 33. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court deci sion in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT [1994] 208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the v…