Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.56 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Pooja Metal Processors (P) Limited on 24 September, 2013 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. on 4 August, 2006

6.3. As far as the Assessing Officer's misconception regarding disallowance of interest on loan under Section 36(1) (iii) of the IT Act is concerned, the appellant had already replied that the investment was made out of capital and reserves and that no loan was utilized for making the above investment. The appellant company had reserves and surplus at ` 1,30,03,206/-, `1,26,02,635/- and `1,22,58,455/- as on 31.3.2004, 31.3.2003 and 31.3.2002 respectively evidencing the viability and profitability of the company. However, the Assessing Officer still calculated the interest on loan, which was not there, in view of the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Abhishek Industries Limited (supra). Even if the Assessing Officer is on the wrong side in proportionately disallowing the interest on the investment of `48,50,000/- coming to `7,27,500/- on wrong footings as Singh Gurbax is pointed out above, the case relied upon by the 2013.10.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.388 of 2009 (O&M) 6 Assessing Officer is still not applicable. Even in that case also if the funds are utilized for business purposes, the interest is allowable.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 376 - R Bindal - Full Document

Amadeus Global Travel Distribution Sa ... vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 November, 2007

In the light of the facts pointed out by the learned CIT(A) in his order and in the light of the preposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders v. CIT( supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee's decision to make investment in the shares of M/s Decarb Pvt. Limited was for a business expediency, and moreover, when this investment was made, no borrowed amount was utilized by the assessee. We, therefore, uphold the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 54 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

S. A. Builders Ltd. .. Petitioner vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ... on 14 December, 2006

7. From the above, it emerges that the assessee-respondent had invested the amount of ` 48.50 lacs in the shares of M/s Pooja Decarb, its sister concern and as per the findings recorded, the investment had doubled by 31st March 2004. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal had recorded that the assessee had thought it commercially expedient to invest in the shares of its sister concern M/s Pooja Decarb Limited. The Apex Court in S.A.Builders Limited's case (supra), held that the commercial expediency as envisaged under Section 37(1) of the Act has also to be kept in view with regard to the assessee's decision in advancing borrowed funds to a sister concern or subsidiary while examining deduction under Section 36(1) (iii) of the Act. In the absence Singh Gurbax of any perversity shown in the findings recorded by CIT(A) and the 2013.10.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.388 of 2009 (O&M) 8 Tribunal, the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest paid on ` 48,50,000/-.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1104 - M Katju - Full Document
1