How many judgments cite Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT?

56 judgments on BharatTax cite Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 363), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(iii), Section 143(3), Section 35D, Section 37(1), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 153A(1)(b).

Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT

187 ITR 363High Court1991#2052 most cited

What is Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Interest paid on borrowed capital is only deductible if the loans were utilized for the assessee's business during the accounting year. Any portion of interest related to non-business purposes is not allowable as an expenditure.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT · borrowed capital · interest expenditure · business purpose · non-business purpose · Section 36(1)(iii) · Section 37(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 35D Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 195 Section 40A(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 40(1)section 3a section 80iab section 262 section 160 section 5(2)(b)section 153(3)section 113 section 80ia(8)section 114 section 40a(2)(b)section 35d

Judgments citing Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Bil Metal Industries Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…harged some interest on the advances under consideration, the burden of interest which the assessee has borne would not have been required to be borne. The AO relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High court in the case of H. R. Sugar Factory Ltd (187 ITR 363) wherein the Hon'ble High Court had confirmed the action of Assessing officer disallowing of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) stating that the assessee could have easily avoided its liability by not giving interest free funds to its group concerns. Had this money not been advanced to the directors, it would M/s. Bil Metal Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Ye…

Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…deductible as revenue expenditure because there were no findings that the two companies were carrying on complementary business and the amalgamation was necessary for the smooth and efficient conduct of business [Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT, (1998) 232 ITR 639, 645 (Del)]. (26) in connection with issuance of share certificates and bonds as a part of the amalgamation scheme [CIT v. Official Liquidator, Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. Ltd., (2000) 244 ITR 156, 160, 162-63 (Guj)]. 3.1. To sum of the issue we find that Hon'ble Justice P.D. Desai, in Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna vs CIT (1981) 13…

Kuloday Technopack P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3300/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

…(1990) 185 ITR 324 (Mad), CIT vs V.I. Baby & Co. (2002) 174 CTR (Ker) 164 : (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Ker), CIT vs, Motor General Finance Ltd. (2002) 173 CTR (Del) 123 : (2002) 254 ITR 449 (Del), CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All), Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 344 (Ori), CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (1991) 190 ITR 349 (All), S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. (2004) 269 ITR 535 (P&H), CIT vs. Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. (1993) 110 CTR (All) 23: (1993) 201 ITR 181 (All), Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208…

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)

…008] 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 as under:- 1. “Copy of ledger A/c of interest paid on unsecured loan alongwith copy of ledger A/cs of various parties to whom interest has been paid during the year under consideration is placed at pages 15 - 21. It is evident from such copies of accounts…

Streamline Shipping Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 855/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe, DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Streamline Shipping Co. P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 3(3) 914, Raheja Centre, Nariman Point Mumbai Mumbai - 400021 PAN No. AABCS7465H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M. Subramanian, AR Revenue by: Shri Vishwas Mundhe, DR Date of Hearing : 16/02/2017 Date of pronouncement: 28/04/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2007-08. The appeal is directed against the ord…

M/S Moira Steel Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 593/IND/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 593/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Moira Steel Limited, Vs. Dy. Cit, Shanivar Darpan Press 1(1), Complex, Indore. A.B. Road, Indore अपीलाथ" / अपीलाथ" /Appellant अपीलाथ" / अपीलाथ" / ""यथ" / ""यथ" /Respondent ""यथ" / ""यथ" / "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aabcm2051K अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Shri C.P.Rawka, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/ ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By ""यथ" क" ओर से/ ""यथ" क" ओर से/ Shri Mohd. Javed, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing सुनवाई क" तारीख/ सुनवाई क" तारीख/ सुनवाई क" तारीख/ 02.03.2017 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/ उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/ उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/ 03.03.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / आदेश /O R D E R आदेश / आदेश /

Section 143(3)

…has, thus, inflated the expenditure of interest, which was otherwise not required at all. In support of his contention, the AO also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Limited, (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All) and also placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Motor General Finance Limited, 254 ITR 449 (Del), Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Limited vs. CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 344 (Orissa) and Phalthan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CWT, (1994)208 ITR 989 (Bom). 1.2 Being aggrieved with the order, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CI…

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…because there were no findings that the two companies were carrying 22 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia on complementary business and the amalgamation was necessary for the smooth and efficient conduct of business [Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT, (1998) 232 ITR 639, 645 (Del)]. (26) in connection with issuance of share certificates and bonds as a part of the amalgamation scheme [CIT v. Official Liquidator, Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. Ltd., (2000) 244 ITR 156, 160, 162-63 (Guj)]. 5. To sum of the issue we find that Hon'ble Justice P.D. Desai, in Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna vs CIT (1981) 131 I…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…(AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 191 of 484 iv) Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. CIT: 127 ITR 746 (Del HC) v) Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT : 136 ITR 340 (Del) vi) Addl. CIT vs. Shama Engine Valves Ltd. : 138 ITR 217 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons P. Ltd. : 158 ITR 195 (Del) viii) CIT vs. Lumax Industries Ltd. : 173 Taxman 390 (Del) ix) Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. vs. CIT : 171 Taxman 81 (Del) x) CIT vs. Shri Ram Pistons and Rings Ltd. : 220 CTR 404 (Del) xi) Goodyear India Ltd. vs. ITO : 73 ITD 189 (Del)(TM) xii) ITO vs. Shivani Locks : 118 TTJ…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 379/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…39 : (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) relied on; CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) applied; CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2002) 177 CTR (Del) 361 : (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Del) and CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All) distinguished. From the accounts, it appears, as was found by the Tribunal, that the total sale proceeds of the relevant financial year was Rs. 114.08 crores and that the entire sale proceeds used to be deposited in the mixed account and the advance was also granted from the mixed account. Therefore, there were sufficient funds for making a…

Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 303/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Ryerson Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1124/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

DCIT Circle-6 (1), New Delhi vs. Lattu Finance & Investment Ltd, New Delhi

In the result this ground against addition u/s 68 of the Act is set aside to the A

ITA 2922/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2004-05 Dy.Cit, Circle 6(1) Vs. M/S Lattu Finance & Investment Ltd. New Delhi (Now Known As Minda Investment Ltd.) 36 A, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar Delhi

For Appellant: Sh.R.S.Negi, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh.Pradeep Dinodia and Sh. RK Kapoor, C.As

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2004-05 Dy.CIT, Circle 6(1) vs. M/s Lattu Finance & Investment Ltd. New Delhi (Now known as Minda Investment Ltd.) 36 A, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh.R.S.Negi, Sr.D.R. Respondent by : Sh.Pradeep Dinodia and Sh. RK Kapoor, C.As. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi dated 24.06.2008 pertaini…

M/S Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3355/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 37(1)

…nditure' incurred for a project which was ultimately scrapped. Judicial precedents on this issue have held such expenses as not 7 allowable being in the nature of capital expenditure and relied upon the judgement cited as Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Vs CIT 232 ITR 639 (Del.), 100 Taxman 90 (Del. H.C.). 13. Ld. A.R. by relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court cited as Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. Vs CIT 185 Taxman 277 (Del.) contended that in the identical circumstances, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has discussed the case of Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs Modi Indus…

P.Sundararajan, Avanashi vs. DCIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1666/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1666/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…be proved that a bona fide loan had been granted in favour of a sister concern. It was, therefore, its duty to place requisite materials on record’’. 14.5 This aspect of the matter has also been considered in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 363, wherein the Allahabad High Court held (page 370): ‘’The court cannot shut its eyes to realities. What has actually happened is visible to the naked eye. The assessee, a private limited company closely held by three family groups, is made to lend huge amounts (up to 23 lakhs of rupees as per the compromise arrived at between the assessee and th…

CIT vs. Hindustan Times Ltd

Appeal is partly allowed, to the extent it covers the first two questions;

ITA - 95 / 2011HC Delhi14 Sept 2012

…lf had taken me view mat me expenditure on an abandoned project would be capital expenditure in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. CIT (1974) 94 ITR 496 (Delhi). Subsequently the Delhi High Court in Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 639 232 2012:DHC:5739-DB ITA-95 & 100/2011 Page 4 ITR (Del) has held that an expenditure in the nature of capital expenditure cannot be treated as revenue expenditure only because the purpose for which the expenses was incurred could not be fulfilled. It was so held by the Delhi High Court that where the issue related to me claim for expe…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indomag Steel Technology Ltd

ITA/446/2008HC Delhi28 Jul 2010

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I.T.A. 446/2008 Judgment delivered on: July 28,2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... APPELLANT Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate INDOMAG STEEL TECHNOLOGY LTD. .....RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) 1. Notice in this appeal was issued limited to the proposed question of law referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of the appeal which…