What is CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. authority for?

When mixed funds are available, interest-free advances are presumed to be made from the assessee's own interest-free funds, preventing disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii). This principle also applies to section 14A disallowance, where interest expenditure is not disallowed if surplus funds are available and no direct nexus is established with borrowed funds for investments earning exempt income.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.?

501 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (410 ITR 466), spanning 2016 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(iii), Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 1962.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (410 ITR 466)

Sidiqbhai Usmanbhai Kaliwala, Bhavnagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1945/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…ofit of Rs. 21,81,996/- and it had advanced a loan of Rs. 21,67,952/- to M/s. S.S. Enterprise during the assessment year 2015-16. Thus, Ld. Counsel prayed in view of the above facts, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries 410 ITR 466 will be squarely I.T.A No. 1945/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 5 Sidiqbhai Usmanbhai Kaliwala vs. DCIT applicable to the facts of the case and the case law namely S.A. Builders relied by the revenue is not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. 6.1. The Ld. Counsel further submitted assessee’s own case for immediate two preceding year n…

Telstar Travels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-1 (3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeds on ground No

ITA 5795/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5795/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd., 208, Mistry Court, Dinshaw Wacha Road, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aabct-3101-D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(2), Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri P.P.Bhandari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Pitta Samuel सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai ( In Short ‘The Cit(A) ’) Dated 02/08/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Two Grounds. In Ground No.1 Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Reopening Of Assessment. The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri P.P.BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Pitta Samuel

Section 36(1)(iii)

…entative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 and on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466. 3 4. Per contra, Shri Pitta Samuel representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue in present appeal for consideration is with respect to disallowance of interest expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the…

Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16

ITA 5485/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.473/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3284 & 5485/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 41-46, Hardware Chowk, Faridabad. Near Govt. Press, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…e is having both interest bearing funds and interest free funds, then it has to be presumed that advances/loans were given out of interest free funds. For this purpose reliance was placed on the following cases: - 1. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 (SC); 2. CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC). 17. The ld. DR submits that the assessee could not prove any commercial expediency in advancing the monies to sister concern and also Aggarwal Enterprises. She strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 18. H…

Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16

ITA 3284/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.473/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3284 & 5485/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 41-46, Hardware Chowk, Faridabad. Near Govt. Press, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…e is having both interest bearing funds and interest free funds, then it has to be presumed that advances/loans were given out of interest free funds. For this purpose reliance was placed on the following cases: - 1. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 (SC); 2. CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC). 17. The ld. DR submits that the assessee could not prove any commercial expediency in advancing the monies to sister concern and also Aggarwal Enterprises. She strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 18. H…

M/S. Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16

ITA 473/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.473/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3284 & 5485/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 41-46, Hardware Chowk, Faridabad. Near Govt. Press, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…e is having both interest bearing funds and interest free funds, then it has to be presumed that advances/loans were given out of interest free funds. For this purpose reliance was placed on the following cases: - 1. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 (SC); 2. CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC). 17. The ld. DR submits that the assessee could not prove any commercial expediency in advancing the monies to sister concern and also Aggarwal Enterprises. She strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 18. H…

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent Cir -1(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 14A

…on account of interest can be made. He stated that identical issue has been decided in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4329/Mum/2014 dated 24th March 2018. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [383 ITR 529]. (iv) He submitted that the learned CIT (A) has invoked the amendment made in Rule 8D of the Rules, by notification dated 2nd June 2016. He submitted that above notification was issued on 2nd June 2016, the impugned A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, this amendment invoke by the…

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Cir-1(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 92/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 14A

…on account of interest can be made. He stated that identical issue has been decided in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4329/Mum/2014 dated 24th March 2018. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [383 ITR 529]. (iv) He submitted that the learned CIT (A) has invoked the amendment made in Rule 8D of the Rules, by notification dated 2nd June 2016. He submitted that above notification was issued on 2nd June 2016, the impugned A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, this amendment invoke by the…

Eldelweiss Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 4(1) (1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 15/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 14A

…on account of interest can be made. He stated that identical issue has been decided in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4329/Mum/2014 dated 24th March 2018. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [383 ITR 529]. (iv) He submitted that the learned CIT (A) has invoked the amendment made in Rule 8D of the Rules, by notification dated 2nd June 2016. He submitted that above notification was issued on 2nd June 2016, the impugned A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, this amendment invoke by the…

Prithavi Realcon and Transportation Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

ITA 247/RPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountantmember) I.T.A. No. 247/Rpr/2017 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Prithavi Realcon & Income Tax Officer, Transportation Pvt. Vs. Ward 2(1) Raipur. Ltd. C/O Sh. Swarup Singh, City Division North Raipur, (C.G.) Pan No. Aagpc1802L (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (ACCOUNTANTMEMBER) I.T.A. No. 247/RPR/2017 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Prithavi Realcon & Income Tax Officer, Transportation Pvt. Vs. Ward 2(1) Raipur. Ltd. C/o Sh. Swarup Singh, City Division North Raipur, (C.G.) PAN No. AAGPC1802L (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Amit M. Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri G. N. Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/06/2022 Date of pronouncement: 10/06/2022 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directe…

M/S. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 744/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

…erest free own funds available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments. With this conclusion, we unhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the learned ITAT favouring the assessees.” 15.18. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited (2019)410 ITR 466 held that where there is a finding of fact that interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment it will be presumed that investments were made from such interest free funds and, hence, on this ground alone the deletion of disallowance of interest claimed under section 36(1)(iii) was upheld. In so doing the Cou…

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

…erest free own funds available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments. With this conclusion, we unhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the learned ITAT favouring the assessees.” 15.18. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited (2019)410 ITR 466 held that where there is a finding of fact that interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment it will be presumed that investments were made from such interest free funds and, hence, on this ground alone the deletion of disallowance of interest claimed under section 36(1)(iii) was upheld. In so doing the Cou…

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. DCIT, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

…erest free own funds available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments. With this conclusion, we unhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the learned ITAT favouring the assessees.” 15.18. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited (2019)410 ITR 466 held that where there is a finding of fact that interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment it will be presumed that investments were made from such interest free funds and, hence, on this ground alone the deletion of disallowance of interest claimed under section 36(1)(iii) was upheld. In so doing the Cou…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/AHD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…siness purpose so as to deny interest expenditure. The impugned disallowance is merely on some assumption that it is diversion of interest bearing funds without any basis or justification. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 held that where interest free funds available with the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment and it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with assessee, therefore, there is no reason to deny the claim of the assessee. Hence, we delete the impugned disallowance of interest expenditure and…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2201/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…siness purpose so as to deny interest expenditure. The impugned disallowance is merely on some assumption that it is diversion of interest bearing funds without any basis or justification. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 held that where interest free funds available with the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment and it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with assessee, therefore, there is no reason to deny the claim of the assessee. Hence, we delete the impugned disallowance of interest expenditure and…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…siness purpose so as to deny interest expenditure. The impugned disallowance is merely on some assumption that it is diversion of interest bearing funds without any basis or justification. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 held that where interest free funds available with the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment and it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with assessee, therefore, there is no reason to deny the claim of the assessee. Hence, we delete the impugned disallowance of interest expenditure and…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2917/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…siness purpose so as to deny interest expenditure. The impugned disallowance is merely on some assumption that it is diversion of interest bearing funds without any basis or justification. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 held that where interest free funds available with the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment and it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with assessee, therefore, there is no reason to deny the claim of the assessee. Hence, we delete the impugned disallowance of interest expenditure and…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…siness purpose so as to deny interest expenditure. The impugned disallowance is merely on some assumption that it is diversion of interest bearing funds without any basis or justification. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 held that where interest free funds available with the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment and it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with assessee, therefore, there is no reason to deny the claim of the assessee. Hence, we delete the impugned disallowance of interest expenditure and…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…siness purpose so as to deny interest expenditure. The impugned disallowance is merely on some assumption that it is diversion of interest bearing funds without any basis or justification. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 held that where interest free funds available with the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment and it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with assessee, therefore, there is no reason to deny the claim of the assessee. Hence, we delete the impugned disallowance of interest expenditure and…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…siness purpose so as to deny interest expenditure. The impugned disallowance is merely on some assumption that it is diversion of interest bearing funds without any basis or justification. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 held that where interest free funds available with the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment and it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with assessee, therefore, there is no reason to deny the claim of the assessee. Hence, we delete the impugned disallowance of interest expenditure and…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…siness purpose so as to deny interest expenditure. The impugned disallowance is merely on some assumption that it is diversion of interest bearing funds without any basis or justification. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 held that where interest free funds available with the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment and it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with assessee, therefore, there is no reason to deny the claim of the assessee. Hence, we delete the impugned disallowance of interest expenditure and…

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

What is CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Sidiqbhai Usmanbhai Kaliwala, Bhavnagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2, Bhavnagar

Telstar Travels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-1 (3) (2), Mumbai

Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

M/S. Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Faridabad

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent Cir -1(2), Mumbai

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Cir-1(2), Mumbai

Eldelweiss Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 4(1) (1), Mumbai

Prithavi Realcon and Transportation Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

M/S. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. DCIT, Kota

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad