3Supporting Case Laws: 6.3.1 CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

161 DTR 420High Court2018#19372 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Judgments citing 3Supporting Case Laws: 6.3.1 CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…on being a non-cash item does not result in (cash) outflow of the funds hence the availability of the same cannot be denied. This position has been repeatedly affirmed in various decisions. 6.3Supporting Case Laws: 6.3.1 CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. (2018) 161 DTR 420 (Bom.) (DPB 22- 23)affirmed by Hon’ble SC in CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC), wherein the HC held that: “Appeal (High Court)—Substantial question of law—Interest on borrowed capital—Net profit after tax and before depreciation exceeded not only the differential/incremental loan given to subsidiaries during the year but als…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 298/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…This way, there was no occasion for the assessee to make a claim of deduction nor for the AO to have made disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 6.1 it is submitted that the issue is directly covered by the decision of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. (2018) 161 DTR 420 (Bom. HC) (DPB V 199- 2019) wherein it was held as under: “Appeal (High Court)—Substantial question of law—Interest on borrowed capital—Net profit after tax and before depreciation exceeded not only the differential/incremental loan given to subsidiaries during the year but also exceeds the total interest-free loans given to the subsidiaries as o…

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36(1)(iii)

…infirmity in the order impugned, and no question of law arises out of the order of ITAT.” On the aspect of the availability of current year profit before depreciation we also find support from the decision in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. (2018) 161 DTR 420 (Bom. HC) wherein it was held as under: “Appeal (High Court)—Substantial question of law—Interest on borrowed capital—Net profit after tax and before depreciation exceeded not only the differential/incremental loan given to subsidiaries during the year but also exceeds the total interest-free loans given to the subsidiaries as on 31st March, 2003…