Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT

238 ITR 939High Court1999#2163 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 366,339 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

ACIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Lnv Technology Private Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for the assessment years 2012-

ITA 1979/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1979 & 1980/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Lnv Technology Private Ltd., Corporate Circle – 4(1), Vs. No. 18/3, Sigap Achi Building 5Th Floor, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Chennai. Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Aaacl 6394H] (&'यथ)/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT
Section 14A

….14A by excluding certain expenses for the purpose of calculation of the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule SD. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) ‘s decision is in contrary to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of K. Somasundaram and Bros. Vs. CIT (1999) (238 ITR 939) (MAD) wherein it was held that funds are mixed bag. :-3-: ITA Nos. 1979 & 1980/Chny/2018 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT (A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 3. The Ld. DR inviting our attention to the relevant portion of the…

ACIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Lnv Technology Private Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for the assessment years 2012-

ITA 1980/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1979 & 1980/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Lnv Technology Private Ltd., Corporate Circle – 4(1), Vs. No. 18/3, Sigap Achi Building 5Th Floor, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Chennai. Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Aaacl 6394H] (&'यथ)/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT
Section 14A

….14A by excluding certain expenses for the purpose of calculation of the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule SD. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) ‘s decision is in contrary to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of K. Somasundaram and Bros. Vs. CIT (1999) (238 ITR 939) (MAD) wherein it was held that funds are mixed bag. :-3-: ITA Nos. 1979 & 1980/Chny/2018 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT (A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 3. The Ld. DR inviting our attention to the relevant portion of the…

Diamond Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 346/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Uma Prasad, Sr. D.R
Section 36

…Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 363 (All.) 4. Indian Saving Products Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 250 (Raj.) 5. Caldern Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 244 (Kal.) 6. CIT vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) 7. K. Somasundram & Bro. [1999] 238 ITR 939 (Madras) 8. Elmer Havell Electrics vs. CIT [2005] 277 ITR 549 (Del.) Thus, the contentions of the assessee lacks merit and could not be substantiated. 5.5 In view of the above narrated facts and the judicial pronouncements, the claim of the assessee in respect of interest is not allowed. Since the assessee has been paying interest @ 12% on loans…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Business Press P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2133/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2019AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…ut of commercial expediency and also could not establish that the loans were advanced out of interest free funds available with the assessee. Relying upon various judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in K.Samsundaram & Bros. [238 ITR 939] & Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Surya Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT [201 ITR 711], Ld. AO reached a conclusion that interest bearing funds were utilized for non-business purposes and interest expenditure could not be considered to have been incurred wholly for the purpose of business. Consequently, applying a rate of 12% on loans / advances of…

Punsumi India Ltd, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1204/JPR/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jes’k lh0 ’kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1202 to 1204/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 1993-94 to 1995-96 cuke Punsumi India Ltd. The DCIT, Vs. D-16, Meera Marg, Circle-3, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFP 0156 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.), Shri Pramod Patni (C.A.) & Shri…

Punsumi India Ltd, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1203/JPR/2018[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jes’k lh0 ’kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1202 to 1204/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 1993-94 to 1995-96 cuke Punsumi India Ltd. The DCIT, Vs. D-16, Meera Marg, Circle-3, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFP 0156 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.), Shri Pramod Patni (C.A.) & Shri…

Punsumi India Ltd, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1202/JPR/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2019AY 1993-94

Bench: The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jes’k lh0 ’kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1202 to 1204/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 1993-94 to 1995-96 cuke Punsumi India Ltd. The DCIT, Vs. D-16, Meera Marg, Circle-3, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFP 0156 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv.), Shri Pramod Patni (C.A.) & Shri…

ITO, WD-12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S S. B. Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 324/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.324/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Choudhury, Add. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40a

…ee not for business purposes. The interest paid by the assessee during the year was Rs. 77, 89,408/-, which is considered to be expended not for the assessee's business activity. Reliance is placed on the decisions of K. Somasundaram &. Brothers v. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 939,944-45 (Mad) and CIT v. Window Glass Ltd. (2003) 179 CTR (Cal) 602, 602-603 where it has been observed that interest paid on the capital borrowed by the assessee-firm and diverted the same as interest-free loans to the relatives of its partners is not deductible. In the decision of Tirupati Trading Co. v. CIT (2000) 242 ITR 13, 18 (Cal) it has be…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 2965/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2002-03 Tata Chemicals Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Bombay House, Vs. Income Tax-2(3)(1), 5Th 24 Homi Mody Street, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai-400001 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner Tata Chemicals Ltd. Of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Vs. Bombay House, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 24 Homi Mody Street, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2002-03 Tata Chemicals Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of Bombay House, Vs. Income Tax-2(3)(1), 5th 24 Homi Mody Street, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai-400001 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 PAN No. AAACT4059M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner Tata Chemicals Ltd. of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Vs. Bombay House, 5th Floor, Aayakar 24 Homi Mody Street, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 PAN No. AAACT4059M Appellant Resp…

Quantum Real Estate and Property Development India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 813/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Quantum Real Estate Vs. Dcit, Cc-39 & Property Development Aayakar Bhavan India Ltd., Ground Floor, M.K. Road 101, Kapadia Apartment Mumbai – 400 020 S.V. Road, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai – 400 056 Pan/Gir No.Aaacq1375R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…est paid cannot be allowed as deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii). The A.O. has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the Case of P.R.M.S. Ramanathen Chettiar v. CIT 72 ITR 534, M.S.P. Raja v. CIT 105 ITR 295, K. - Somasundiiram & Bros. v. CIT 238 ITR 939 and in the case of CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 156 Taxman 257. In view of the facts that although the assessee has claimed in the balance sheet that advances were given against property but nothing has been brought on record to establish the same and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Courts the A.O. has held that the assessee has failed…

Mukta Arts Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1658/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1658/Mum/2013 & 1629/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Mukta Arts Limited Addl. Cit 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Mukta House Aayakar Bhavan, Filmcity Complex, M K Road V. Goregaon(East) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400065 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacm9513F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri. T A Khan
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…paid interest of Rs. 2,76,36,508/- during the year and consequently differential interest being 1.5% to the tune of Rs. 4,14,548/- was brought to tax by the AO by relying on decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K. Somusundaram & Bros. v. CIT 238 ITR 939 and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Phelta Sugar Works Limited (208 ITR 989) vide assessment order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3), which was later confirmed by learned CIT(A) while disposing of first appeal vide appellate order dated 11.01.2013 passed by learned CIT(A). 5.Now, the assessee has filed an second appeal with tr…

Til Healthcare Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corpore Ward 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2416/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2416/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Acit, M/S. Til Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Ward – 3(1), Jhaver Centre, Raja Annamalai Building, Chennai. No.72, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aabct0985H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 08.02.2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 08.02.2018
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

…d.CIT(A) relying in the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case Punjab Stainless Steel Indus vs. CIT reported in 324 ITR 396, the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case K. Somasundaram & Bros. vs. CIT reported in 238 ITR 939, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case CIT vs. Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 523 and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case CIT vs. P. Ganu Rao & Sons reported in 185 ITR 324 confirmed the order of the Ld.AO by holding that the appellant had diverted interest bea…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 196/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…disallowed proportionate interest of Rs.26,15,622/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.11,32,617/- for the assessment year 2012-13, placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case K. Somasundaram & others reported in 238 ITR 939 wherein it was held that “interest paid on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted th…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 195/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…disallowed proportionate interest of Rs.26,15,622/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.11,32,617/- for the assessment year 2012-13, placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case K. Somasundaram & others reported in 238 ITR 939 wherein it was held that “interest paid on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted th…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 194/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…disallowed proportionate interest of Rs.26,15,622/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.11,32,617/- for the assessment year 2012-13, placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case K. Somasundaram & others reported in 238 ITR 939 wherein it was held that “interest paid on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted th…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 193/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…disallowed proportionate interest of Rs.26,15,622/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.11,32,617/- for the assessment year 2012-13, placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case K. Somasundaram & others reported in 238 ITR 939 wherein it was held that “interest paid on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted th…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 192/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…disallowed proportionate interest of Rs.26,15,622/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.11,32,617/- for the assessment year 2012-13, placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case K. Somasundaram & others reported in 238 ITR 939 wherein it was held that “interest paid on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted th…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 191/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…disallowed proportionate interest of Rs.26,15,622/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.11,32,617/- for the assessment year 2012-13, placing reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case K. Somasundaram & others reported in 238 ITR 939 wherein it was held that “interest paid on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted th…

M/S.Muthoot Chitty Fund, Kozhencherry vs. The DCIT, Thiruvalla

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Nov 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri. R.SreenivasanFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ess purposes. The Assessing Officer had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I.Baby & Co. [(2002) 254 ITR 248 (Ker.)], judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K.Somasundaram & Brothers v. CIT [(1999) 238 ITR 939 (Mad.)] and the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. [(2006) 286 ITR 01 (P&H)]. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee preferred appeal to the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, it was contended that funds have been diverted out of commercial…

Essar Power Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1849/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri K. S. Rajendrakumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 271Section 36

…)(iii (i) CIT vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport Pvt. Ltd. 61 ITR 480 (Mad.) (ii) Kishinchand Cheliaram vs. CIT 114 ITR 654 (Bom.) (iii) R. Dalmiya vs. CIT 133 ITR 169 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs. M.S.Venkateshwaran 222 ITR 163 (Mad.) (v) K.Somasundaram & Brothers vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad.) 17 Essar Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT (vi) CIT vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del.) has confirmed in principle in Motor General Finance Ltd. vs. CU 267 ITR 381 (SC) 7 Further reliance is placed on CIT Vs. Coimbatore Sale Transport Pvt. Ltd. [61 ITR , 487 (Mad)] in which the court has held that it is for the assessee to prove t…