Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Loan Interest Deletion Upheld, Investment Allowance Granted, Ex Gratia Bonus Permitted; Appeal Partially Successful

        Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another Versus Radico Khaitan Ltd.

        Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another Versus Radico Khaitan Ltd. - [2005] 274 ITR 354, 194 CTR 451, 142 TAXMANN 681 Issues Involved:
        1. Deletion of interest disallowed on loan given by the assessee to its sister concern for non-business purposes.
        2. Allowance of investment allowance on telephone exchange installed in fertilizer unit and distillery unit.
        3. Allowability of ex gratia bonus payments made by the assessee over and above the bonus payable under the Bonus Act, 1965.
        4. Classification of interest and dividend income as business income versus income from other sources.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Deletion of Interest Disallowed on Loan Given to Sister Concern:
        The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 2,83,635 interest on the loan given to M/s. Rampur International Private Limited. The Tribunal found that the assessee-company had sufficient funds from share capital, share application money, reserve, and surplus, which could cover the loan amount of Rs. 17.19 lakhs. The principle of consistency was applied, referencing CIT v. Sridev Enterprises, indicating that if no disallowance was made in previous years, it should not be made in subsequent years. The Tribunal's finding that the funds were not borrowed for the loan was upheld, as it was not specifically challenged in the appeal. The court confirmed that the conditions under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act were met, allowing the interest deduction.

        2. Allowance of Investment Allowance on Telephone Exchange:
        The Tribunal allowed the investment allowance for the telephone exchange, treating it as a plant. However, the court noted that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing items listed in the Eleventh Schedule, which disqualifies it from investment allowance under section 32A(2A) of the Act. Despite this, the telephone exchange in the fertilizer unit was deemed eligible for investment allowance, as it was considered a plant, not an office appliance, aligning with the Karnataka High Court's decision in Electronics Research Industries Pvt. Ltd.

        3. Allowability of Ex Gratia Bonus Payments:
        The Tribunal held that the ex gratia payment of Rs. 45,927 was an allowable deduction. The court confirmed this, noting that the proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, which restricted such deductions, was omitted effective April 1, 1989. Thus, for the assessment year 1990-91, the ex gratia bonus was deemed an allowable deduction.

        4. Classification of Interest and Dividend Income:
        The Tribunal directed the interest and dividend income to be treated as business income, based on past treatment of similar income. However, the court disagreed, stating that under section 14 and section 56 of the Act, such income should be classified under "Income from other sources" unless it directly relates to the business. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., which held that interest on surplus funds not used in business operations should be taxed as income from other sources. Consequently, the court directed that the interest and dividend income be classified under "Income from other sources."

        Conclusion:
        The court affirmed the Tribunal's decisions on the first and third issues, partially agreed on the second issue, and reversed the decision on the fourth issue. The appeal was partly allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found