Itta/328/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv v. M/S My Home Industries Ltd
High Court
13 Aug 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/328/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv v. M/S My Home Industries Ltd
Date of order
13 Aug 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/328/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv v. M/S My Home Industries Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
I.T.T.A.No.328 of 2013
Date: 13.08.2013
Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV,Hyderabad.
.....Appellant
AND
M/s My Home Industries Ltd.,Hyderabad..
...Respondent
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
I.T.T.A.No.328 of 2013
JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta )
We have heard Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Counsel for theappellant, and gone through the judgment and order of the learnedTribunal.
It appears that the learned Tribunal has come to the factfinding that there is nexus between the expenditure and thepurpose of the business. The assessee took loan from ICICI Bankand the same was utilized for the purpose of acquisition of sharesof APGPCL. Thus, it has been correctly held that it cannot beconsidered as investment in relation to earning of incomeexempted from tax. It has been found that the expenditureincurred by the assessee towards interest on loan from ICICI Bankis to be allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of theIncome Tax Act. The learned Tribunal correctly found that nointerference was called for under Section 263 of the Income TaxAct.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any meritin this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order asto costs.
___________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_______________
K.C.BHANU, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.