TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... holding that interest on Secured Promissory Notes was required to be disallowed when admittedly the said interest was in respect of the capital borrowed for the purposes of the business of the appellant? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not allowing expenditure pertaining to Soda Ash and Lab Front projects as revenue expenditure?" 2. Regarding the first question in case of this very assessee in Tax Appeal No. 1219 of 2006 decided on 10.10.2017, we had held in favour of the assessee making following observations: "18. Before addressing the issue of the very nature of the transaction, we may clear a few peripheral issues. We have noted at some length the reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... borrowed amount. All that is germane is whether the borrowing was, or was not, for the purpose of the business. It was held that the provision makes no distinction between money borrowed to acquire a capital asset or a revenue asset." 3. Regarding the second question, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of judgement of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nirma Ltd. reported in [2015] 255 Taxmann.com 125, in which, it was observed as under: "15. On due consideration of rival submissions, we notice at this stage that this Court, while adjudicating the said issue, had at length discussed the same to hold that the expansion since was of an existing business, the tests applied in case of CIT v. Alembic ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd inter-dependence of the management, financial and administrative control of various units of Nirma Limited. It was on this ground, the Tribunal held that the business in question is continuation of the existing business and not a new business. In this context, the decision relied on by the authorities below of this Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (supra) laid down tests for ascertaining whether a business was part of existing business or the assessee was starting a new unit. It was held that merely because the unit was coming to a distant point by itself would not mean that it was a new business. If the facts as recorded by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal can be said to have achieved finality, it would emerge tha....