Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT

238 ITR 939High Court1999#2165 most cited

What is Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT authority for?

Interest paid on borrowed funds is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act to the extent such funds are diverted to provide interest-free advances for non-business purposes, such as to sister concerns or promoter companies.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT · 238 ITR 939 Madras · Section 36(1)(iii) Income-tax Act · interest on borrowed capital · interest-free advances · diversion of borrowed funds · non-business purpose disallowance · commercial expediency interest deduction · interest disallowance sister concern · borrowed funds interest-free loan

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36(1)(iii)Section 801A(iv)

Issues it is cited on

tax recovery officersection 36(1)(ii)interest free advancessection 51section 36(1)(iii)mistake apparent from recordsection 10aacomputer softwarecommercial expediencysection 10asection 36(1)section 36

Judgments citing Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT

BANSAL PATHWAYS DAMOH KATNI P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 851/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibansal Pathways Damoh Dcit-1(1), बनाम Katni Private Limited, Bhopal / 15Th Floor Bansal One, Vs. Rani Kamlapati Railway Station, Bhopal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

…y Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 363 (All.) 4. Indian Saving Products Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 250 (Raj.) 5. Caldern Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 244 (Kal.) 6. CIT vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) 7. Somasundram & Bro. [1999] 238 ITR 939 (Madras) 8. Elmer Havell Electrics vs. CIT [2005] 277 ITR 549 (Del.) 9. Since, the assessee had diverted its borrowed fund to its prompter company without charging any interest & Section 36(1)(iii) allows the deduction of the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business but herein this case, the money given t…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRATEEK APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3099/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: \nShri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…200/-.No borrowed fund was used for advancing loans. It\nwas submitted that the AO has relied upon the decision of Punjab High\nCourt in case of Punjab Stainless Steel Ltd 324 ITR 396 (Delhi)\nand of High Court of Madras in case of K. Somasundaram &\nBrothers 238 ITR 939 (Madras). However, High Court of Punjab,\nitself, has recently considered a similar issue in case of CIT vs. Max\nIndia Ltd 398 ITR 209 (P&H). The Tribunal in that case held\ninterest free funds available were sufficient for interest free loans and\nadvances and no interest disallowance was upheld. The High Court on\nappeal held that no question…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(3), MUMBAI vs. PRATEEK APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2936/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: \nShri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…200/-.No borrowed fund was used for advancing loans. It\nwas submitted that the AO has relied upon the decision of Punjab High\nCourt in case of Punjab Stainless Steel Ltd 324 ITR 396 (Delhi)\nand of High Court of Madras in case of K. Somasundaram &\nBrothers 238 ITR 939 (Madras). However, High Court of Punjab,\nitself, has recently considered a similar issue in case of CIT vs. Max\nIndia Ltd 398 ITR 209 (P&H). The Tribunal in that case held\ninterest free funds available were sufficient for interest free loans and\nadvances and no interest disallowance was upheld. The High Court on\nappeal held that no question…

M/S. KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 700/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri. C. R. Krishna and Sachin Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

…vance the interest free loans to its sister concerns for non-business purpose. Hence the same cannot be allowed. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions. 1. Bombay High Court -240 ITR 762 Hindustan Conductors P. Ltd. 2. Madras High Court -238 ITR 939 K. Somasundaram & Bros. 3. Punjab & Haryana High Court — 286 ITR 1 Abhishek Industries Ltd. 4.4 In view of the above facts, and considering the amount of interest charged to Profit and Loss account as borrowing cost, the average rate of interest @ 12% annum is considered as reasonable for disallowance and accordingly, an amount of Rs.40,21,980/-…

M/S. KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY LTD. ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri. C. R. Krishna and Sachin Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

…vance the interest free loans to its sister concerns for non-business purpose. Hence the same cannot be allowed. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions. 1. Bombay High Court -240 ITR 762 Hindustan Conductors P. Ltd. 2. Madras High Court -238 ITR 939 K. Somasundaram & Bros. 3. Punjab & Haryana High Court — 286 ITR 1 Abhishek Industries Ltd. 4.4 In view of the above facts, and considering the amount of interest charged to Profit and Loss account as borrowing cost, the average rate of interest @ 12% annum is considered as reasonable for disallowance and accordingly, an amount of Rs.40,21,980/-…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3, SRINAGAR vs. MEASAGE SAIFCO CEEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Department and CO of the Assesse is 23

ITA 451/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 451/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner of Vs. M/s Saifco Cement Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-3 Kral Sangri Brain Nishat, Srinagar Srinagar [PAN: AAECS 8832M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 6/Asr/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 451/Asr/2019) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Saifco Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Opp. Post Office Batwara Income Tax, Circle-3 Srinagar, J & K Shah House, Srinagar J&K [PAN: AAECS 8832M] (Ap…

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…ITA No.954/Bang/2022 M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited The Millenia Level 1 & 14, No.1 & 2 Murphy Road NFAC Vs. Ulsoor Delhi Bangalore 560 008. PAN NO : AADCR3654H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of Hearing : 08.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023 O R D E R This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dat…

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…allowed only if capital borrowed has been exclusively used for the purpose of business. He placed reliance on the judgements of hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P.R.M.S Ramanathan Chettiar 72 ITR 534 and in the case of K Somasundaram and bros vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 and CIT vs. Abhishek industries Ltd 156 taxman 257(P & H). He also observed that the assessee has not stated what was the reason to divert the partners capital and realisation from sundry debtors as interest free loan to Shri Nirav Modi. The AO analysed the rates of interest of various banks and felt that rate of 7% on the loans advanced to Nirav…

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 538/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…allowed only if capital borrowed has been exclusively used for the purpose of business. He placed reliance on the judgements of hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P.R.M.S Ramanathan Chettiar 72 ITR 534 and in the case of K Somasundaram and bros vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 and CIT vs. Abhishek industries Ltd 156 taxman 257(P & H). He also observed that the assessee has not stated what was the reason to divert the partners capital and realisation from sundry debtors as interest free loan to Shri Nirav Modi. The AO analysed the rates of interest of various banks and felt that rate of 7% on the loans advanced to Nirav…

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 537/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…allowed only if capital borrowed has been exclusively used for the purpose of business. He placed reliance on the judgements of hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P.R.M.S Ramanathan Chettiar 72 ITR 534 and in the case of K Somasundaram and bros vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 and CIT vs. Abhishek industries Ltd 156 taxman 257(P & H). He also observed that the assessee has not stated what was the reason to divert the partners capital and realisation from sundry debtors as interest free loan to Shri Nirav Modi. The AO analysed the rates of interest of various banks and felt that rate of 7% on the loans advanced to Nirav…

DIAMONDS 'R' US,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…allowed only if capital borrowed has been exclusively used for the purpose of business. He placed reliance on the judgements of hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P.R.M.S Ramanathan Chettiar 72 ITR 534 and in the case of K Somasundaram and bros vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 and CIT vs. Abhishek industries Ltd 156 taxman 257(P & H). He also observed that the assessee has not stated what was the reason to divert the partners capital and realisation from sundry debtors as interest free loan to Shri Nirav Modi. The AO analysed the rates of interest of various banks and felt that rate of 7% on the loans advanced to Nirav…

M/S GENERAL AERODYNAMICS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S General Aerodynamics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer-2(1)(2), Ali Chambers, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Room No. 543, Aayakar Mumbai-400023. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate-400021. Pan No. Aabcg 4629 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Smita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/07/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…business objects. Further reliance is placed on CIT Vs M.S. CIT Vs M.S. Venkateswaran (Mad) 222 ITR 163 K. Somasundaram & Venkateswaran (Mad) 222 ITR 163 K. Somasundaram & Venkateswaran (Mad) 222 ITR 163 K. Somasundaram & Brothers Vs CI Brothers Vs CIT (Mad) 238 ITR 939 where in it was held that in it was held that When Department established the fact of diversion of borrowed When Department established the fact of diversion of borrowed When Department established the fact of diversion of borrowed funds for non funds for non-business purposes, the presumption that assessee business purposes, the presumption that…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CONSTRUCTION FINANCE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 343/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.317/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafs2597N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.343/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Construction Income Tax, Finance, Mookambika Complex, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…appeal before the ld. CIT(A) 6 I.T.A. Nos.317 & 343/Chny/19 and challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision in the case of K. Somasundaram & Bros v. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad), the ld. CIT(A) decided the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act against the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act at 17.58% of the actual interest received and after reducing the disallowance, if any, made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 4. On being ag…

M/S. SHRIRAM CONSTRUCTION FINANCE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 317/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.317/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafs2597N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.343/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Construction Income Tax, Finance, Mookambika Complex, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…appeal before the ld. CIT(A) 6 I.T.A. Nos.317 & 343/Chny/19 and challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision in the case of K. Somasundaram & Bros v. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad), the ld. CIT(A) decided the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act against the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act at 17.58% of the actual interest received and after reducing the disallowance, if any, made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 4. On being ag…

ACIT CIRCLE- 16 (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA SKY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7451/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.MistriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 194HSection 36Section 40

…business purpose. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is justified? 2.4 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the decision as held in K. Somasundaram and Brothers vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 (MAD) is more relevant in the instant case? 2.5 Without prejudice to the contentions above, it is submitted that even if the decision of Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 is 3 Tata Sky Limited found applicable, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have recommended disallowance on a proportionate basis and ought not to have all…

TATA SKY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RANGE 16 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7337/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.MistriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 194HSection 36Section 40

…business purpose. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is justified? 2.4 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the decision as held in K. Somasundaram and Brothers vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 (MAD) is more relevant in the instant case? 2.5 Without prejudice to the contentions above, it is submitted that even if the decision of Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 is 3 Tata Sky Limited found applicable, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have recommended disallowance on a proportionate basis and ought not to have all…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 737/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…ment of shares of certain companies, when the commercial expending for such diversion of funds was not proved by the assessee. 5.4 The CIT(A) omitted to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K. Somasundaram and Brothers (1999) (238 ITR 939) (Mad) which is in favour of the department. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2145, 2210, 2038/Chny/2017, 737/Chny/2018 & C.O No.76/Chny/2018 Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 4. The…

DCIT-2(1), , CHENNAI vs. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD,, CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2210/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…ment of shares of certain companies, when the commercial expending for such diversion of funds was not proved by the assessee. 5.4 The CIT(A) omitted to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K. Somasundaram and Brothers (1999) (238 ITR 939) (Mad) which is in favour of the department. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2145, 2210, 2038/Chny/2017, 737/Chny/2018 & C.O No.76/Chny/2018 Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 4. The…

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -2(1), CHENNAI vs. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2145/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…ment of shares of certain companies, when the commercial expending for such diversion of funds was not proved by the assessee. 5.4 The CIT(A) omitted to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K. Somasundaram and Brothers (1999) (238 ITR 939) (Mad) which is in favour of the department. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2145, 2210, 2038/Chny/2017, 737/Chny/2018 & C.O No.76/Chny/2018 Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 4. The…

THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2038/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…ment of shares of certain companies, when the commercial expending for such diversion of funds was not proved by the assessee. 5.4 The CIT(A) omitted to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K. Somasundaram and Brothers (1999) (238 ITR 939) (Mad) which is in favour of the department. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2145, 2210, 2038/Chny/2017, 737/Chny/2018 & C.O No.76/Chny/2018 Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 4. The…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT (238 ITR 939) — Cited in 53 Judgments | BharatTax