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)

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 2765/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2008-09

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-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2334/AHD/2014[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-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 3126/AHD/2013[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. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1966/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2007-08

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…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT., (OSD)Circle-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1385/AHD/2012[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…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 442/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2007-08

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…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 441/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2004-05

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…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT., Range-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 3254/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2008-09

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-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 722/AHD/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2006-07

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-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2489/AHD/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2005-06

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 Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 118/AHD/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2002-03

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 Traditional Gallery Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 108/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

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

…td., Jaipur. of making disallowance out of interest expenses, had made addition towards the notional interest which is not permissible under the provisions of IT Act. The ld. A/R placed reliance on the following judgments : CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT & Others 298 ITR 298 (SC) The ld. A/R further submitted that assessee was holding funds from various sources. At this juncture, our attention was invited to Note 2.3 of Balance Sheet, i.e. Long Term borrowings, and Note 2.5 i.e. Short term borrowings, from perusal of which it is evident that assessee has…

M/S Traditional Gallery Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 107/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

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

…td., Jaipur. of making disallowance out of interest expenses, had made addition towards the notional interest which is not permissible under the provisions of IT Act. The ld. A/R placed reliance on the following judgments : CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT & Others 298 ITR 298 (SC) The ld. A/R further submitted that assessee was holding funds from various sources. At this juncture, our attention was invited to Note 2.3 of Balance Sheet, i.e. Long Term borrowings, and Note 2.5 i.e. Short term borrowings, from perusal of which it is evident that assessee has…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…ITA Nos.926 & 1118/Ahd/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 22, Dhara Centre, (OSD) Range –1, Ahmedabad Vijay Char Rasta, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009. [PAN – AAACC 0134 G] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., (OSD) Range –1, Ahmedabad. 22, Dhara Centre, Vi…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…ITA Nos.926 & 1118/Ahd/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 22, Dhara Centre, (OSD) Range –1, Ahmedabad Vijay Char Rasta, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009. [PAN – AAACC 0134 G] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., (OSD) Range –1, Ahmedabad. 22, Dhara Centre, Vi…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner of UB Towers, Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(1) v. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AACCM8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed ag…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3438/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. AR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…loans have reduced from Rs.3605.38 Lacs to Rs.3337.22 Lacs during the year. As against this, there was sufficient cash generation to source this investment. Therefore, as per the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Industries Ltd. (307 CTR 121), it could be presumed that the investments were made from interest free funds available with the assessee. The ratio of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) as well the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities (313 ITR 340) was applicable to the case of the assessee. The availabil…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3437/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. AR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…loans have reduced from Rs.3605.38 Lacs to Rs.3337.22 Lacs during the year. As against this, there was sufficient cash generation to source this investment. Therefore, as per the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Industries Ltd. (307 CTR 121), it could be presumed that the investments were made from interest free funds available with the assessee. The ratio of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) as well the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities (313 ITR 340) was applicable to the case of the assessee. The availabil…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dcom Systems Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2008/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 & Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit (Osd), Range-1 M/S.D-Com Systems Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Shop No.28, 1St Floor Vraj Vihar 6, B/H. Rahul Tower, Off. 100 Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaccd 4827 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Orders Dated 7.7.2014 & 26.05.2016 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad For The Asstt.Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since Assessee Is Same In Both The Cases, We Proceed To Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted Through Virtual Court) ] ] BEFORE S/SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 AND Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT (OSD), Range-1 M/s.D-Com Systems Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Shop No.28, 1st Floor Vraj Vihar 6, B/h. Rahul Tower, Off. 100 Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. PAN : AACCD 4827 H अपीलाथ"/ (App…

The DCIT(OSD) Range-I, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. D. Com Systems Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2580/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 & Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit (Osd), Range-1 M/S.D-Com Systems Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Shop No.28, 1St Floor Vraj Vihar 6, B/H. Rahul Tower, Off. 100 Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaccd 4827 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Orders Dated 7.7.2014 & 26.05.2016 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad For The Asstt.Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since Assessee Is Same In Both The Cases, We Proceed To Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted Through Virtual Court) ] ] BEFORE S/SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 AND Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT (OSD), Range-1 M/s.D-Com Systems Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Shop No.28, 1st Floor Vraj Vihar 6, B/h. Rahul Tower, Off. 100 Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. PAN : AACCD 4827 H अपीलाथ"/ (App…

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.

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-5, Ahmedabad

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

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

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT., (OSD)Circle-5, Ahmedabad

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT., Range-5, Ahmedabad

The DCIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

The DCIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

M/S Traditional Gallery Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

M/S Traditional Gallery Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dcom Systems Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The DCIT(OSD) Range-I, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. D. Com Systems Ltd., Ahmedabad