TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing orders Tax Appeal No. Date of Tribunal's order ITA No. Assessment Year 620/2006 29.10.2004 1984/Ahd/1998 1993-94 621/2006 29.10.2004 2135/Ahd/1998 1993-94 622/2006 29.10.2004 2136/Ahd/1998 1994-95 623/2006 29.10.2004 2000/Ahd/1998 1995-96 624/2006 29.10.2004 2219/Ahd/1998 1995-96 625/2006 29.10.2004 464/Ahd/2002 1996-97 1.1 These appeals were admitted by this Court on 11.10.2006 for consideration of the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that interest free funds were available with the assessee and thereby deleting the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wance of interest was called for. 3.1 In support of his submissions, Mr. Soparkar has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd reported in [2013] 354 ITR 222 and in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax - I vs. Amod Stamping (P.) Ltd reported in [2014] 45 taxmann.com 427 (Gujarat). 5. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and gone through the records of the case. At the outset we think it appropriate to have a look at section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the same is reproduced hereunder: "(iii) the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession. Explanation.- Recurring subscriptions paid periodicall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, the AO was not justified in making additions and/or making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the learned ITAT in deleting the disallowance made by the AO under section 36(1) (iii) of the IT Act. No question of law much less substantial question of law arise with respect to deletion of the disallowance made by the AO under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act." 5.2 Similarly in the case of Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd (supra), this Court has held as under: "9. We may refer to the judgment of Apex Court at this stage given in case of S.A.Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) where the question was whether i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize its profit. The Income Tax Authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own viewpoint but that of a prudent businessman. As already stated above, we have to see the transfer of the borrowed funds to a sister concern from the point of view of commercial expediency and not from th....