Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing M/S.Tube Investments Of India Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 March, 2014

M/S..Tube Investments Of India Ltd., vs . The Joint on 21 March, 2019

10. In view of the said finding of facts, which are binding on this Court, while hearing the Appeal under Section 260 A, we cannot entertain the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Assessee that Haryana Unit set up by the Assessee for manufacturing of wide width strips & doorframes is merely an expansion of the existing business at Chennai which is engaged in the manufacture of narrow width strips for Hyundai Motor India Limited which is a different car manufacturing unit in Chennai. Even though the Assessee is one company and it has set up a diferent unit at Haryana and since the interest paid on borrowings pertains to Haryana Unit, which was a new unit set up by the same company,it cannot be construed as a mere expansion of business existing at Chennai particularly, when the Assessee has capitalised the said expansion in its Books of Accounts as consistently found by the authorities below. Therefore, the disallowance of said interest on borrowings under Section 36(1) (iii) of the Act was a natural consequence to follow. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions raised before http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in T.C.A.No.233 of 2008 dt.21.03.2019 M/s..Tube Investments of India Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 14/16 this Court and hence the Questions of Law Nos. 1 and 2 are answered against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Dcit, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs East West Pipeline Pvt Ltd., Mumbai on 5 January, 2024

2. It is seen from the records that the assessee company has claimed a loss of Rs 604,35,06,392/ towards foreign exchange loss on transaction and translation. As per records the said loss is on account of foreign currency swap of Rs. 4500/- crores which was taken on underlying or Rupee loan. Perusal of the records revealed that there are hardly any foreign debtor or creditor for stock in trade and all the loss pertained to capital account. Further the loss is speculative in the nature as the loans were Rupee Loans. As the loans were not for stock in trade but for capital commitments, loss incurred on said loans due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rates is to be regarded as capital in nature and could not be claimed as deduction. As per section 37 of the Act, while computing income for tax purpose, expenditure of capital nature is not allowable deduction. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Tube Investment of India Limited vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 45 Taxman.com 78 (Madras) held that whereas company utilized foreign loan for the purpose of capital equipment, loss incurred on said loan due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate was to be regarded as capital in nature which could not be allowed as deduction. Thus, the claim of foreign exchange loss is of capital nature which required to be added back to the total income and hence the claim of the assessee on this account is improper and resulted in underassessment of income by Rs.604,35,06,392/-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1