How many judgments cite CIT v. Reliance Energy Limited?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Reliance Energy Limited (127 Taxmann.com 69), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Reliance Energy Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 80P, Section 1961, Section 115JB, Section 37(1).

CIT v. Reliance Energy Limited

127 Taxmann.com 69Supreme Court of India2021#2470 most cited

What is CIT v. Reliance Energy Limited authority for?

Deduction under Section 80-IA or 80-IB is computed by setting it off against the gross total income to arrive at the total income of an assessee.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Reliance Energy Limited · 358 ITR 371 · 127 Taxmann.com 69 · Section 80IA deduction · Section 80IB deduction · gross total income · total income computation · eligible business deduction

Also reported as

358 ITR 371

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P Section 1961 Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 80-IA Section 80A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80ab section 80ia(8)section 92ba section 80ia(5)minimum alternate tax eligible business csr expenditure section 92f mat credit section 80hhc section 80ia section 80hh

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Energy Limited

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Purvankara Projects Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

Section 139(1)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.347 & 348/Bang/2021 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Purvankara Projects Ltd., of Income Tax, No.130/1, Ulsoor Road, Central Circle 1(2), Bengaluru – 560 042. PAN: AAACP 2550R Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Date of hearing : 12.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Memb…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Purvankara Projects Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

Section 139(1)Section 80Section 80I

M/S. Brigade Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 14ASection 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…y the Ld.AR that, while computing “total income”, deduction is available under section 80IA/80IB is to be set off against the gross total income. He placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2012) 127 Taxmann.com 69. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR argued that it is only the profits under the head ‘business income’ from eligible undertaking that has to be taken into account for purposes of determining the deduction available under section 80IA/80IB of the Act. 6.11. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records plac…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 164, 165 & 166/H/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. NSL Renewable Power Income-tax, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AABCN 6009L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar Assessee by: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala Date of hearing: 23/06/2021 Date of pronouncement: 03/09/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: These three appeals filed by the…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 165/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 834/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 834/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Standard Chartered Bank Ddit (It)-2(1), बनाम/ 1St Floor, Scindia House, Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, N. M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 038 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 4681 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ankit Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

For Appellant: Shri Ankit MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 243DSection 245

…be for the period after 31.5.2003, as also clarified in CIT vs. Kerala Chemicals & Proteins Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 584 (Ker), also relied upon by the Revenue. The position has been in fact endorsed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. Reliance Energy Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 371 (SC). The assessee’s second objection also would not pass muster in-as-much as the refund has been granted on 31.3.2006 (upon adjustment of part refund and issue of refund order for the balance amount). The assessee, it may be noted, has not objected to the said adjustment, which though does not appear to be consistent with the procedure u/s. 245…

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Formelry Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 992/MUM/2013[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 1994-95 Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Dcit Rg 3(2), (Formerly Indian Rayon & Mumbai Vs. Industries Ltd.) A4 Aditya Birla Centre, S K Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 030 Pan Aaaci1747H (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 244Section 244A

…ted that applicability of the provisions of section 234D of the Act have been held to be prospective and not retrospective w.e.f. 01.06.2003 only. The learned counsel explained that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 371 (SC) has held that the provisions of section 234D of the Act will apply to the pending assessments, which are pending as on 01.06.2003. The learned counsel further stated that in the present case the assessment was completed on 26.03.1997 and nothing was pending. On query from the Bench, the learned senior DR took us through the order of the…