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)

M/S. Tridhaatu Ventures LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO-27(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1833/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1833/मुं/2020("न. व .2015-16) M/S.Tridhaatu Ventures Llp, 5Th Floor, B-Wing, Shrikant Chambers, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Pan: Aahft-6453-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-27(3)(4), Room No.427, 4Th Floor, 6Th Tower, Vashi Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Mandhar Vaidya ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/03/2022

For Appellant: Shri Mandhar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary

Section 36(1)(iii)

…er (Appeals) erred in ignoring that the Appellant/asseesee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the amount of capital withdrawn by its partner and hence a presumption arises, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT V/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. {2019} 410 ITR 466,(SC), that the said amount is paid out of own/interest- free funds and therefore, no disallowance is called for u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 3 For adjudication of aforementioned additional ground no additional evidence is required to be furnished. The ld. Departmental Representative has not controverted this fact. In the facts of the case addit…

Acme Chem Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 393/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.393/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acme Chem Ltd...........................................………….………………….……Appellant 9A Saket Apartment, 2 Ho Chi Minh Saranai, Kolkata - 700071. [Pan:Aacca3931B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata..…….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 02, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.08.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Regarding The Validity Of The Disallowance Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities U/S 14A R.W. Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & 8D(2)(Iii) Of The I.T Rules On Account Of Expenditure Incurred For Earning Of Tax Exempt Income. 3. So Far As The Disallowance U/S 14A Of The Act R.W. Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Of The I.T. Rules Is Concerned, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Had Sufficient Owned Funds To Meet The Investments. He, In This Respect, Has Relied Upon The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration To Submit That The Assessee Had Share Capital Of Rs.5.86 Crores & Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.77.91 Crores As On 31.03.2013 & These Were Share Capital Of Rs.5.86 Crores & Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.81.93 Crores As On 31.03.2014. He Has Further Invited Our Attention To The Details Of

Section 14ASection 250

…reliance in this case can also been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycle (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 379 ITR 347 (SC) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT (LTU) vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) wherein it has been held that if the assessee is possessed of sufficient interest free funds to meet the investments, then, under the circumstances presumption will be that the interest free advances/investments have been made by the assessee out of owned funds/interest free 2 I.T.A. No.393/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acme Chem Ltd. f…

Sabarmati Gas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &

Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member ITA No. 1607 & 1533/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year 2010-11 Sabarmati Gas Limited ACIT Gandhinagar Plot No. 907, Sector-21, Circle, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar-382021 Vs (Respondent) PAN No: AAKCS0110N Joint Commissioner of Sabarmati Gas Limited Income Tax(OSD), Vs Plot No. 907, Sector-21, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar-382021 (Appellant) PAN No: AAKCS0110N Assessment Year 2012-13 & ITA No. 2002/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 Sabarmati Gas Limit…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Gandhinagar vs. Sabarmati Gas Limited, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1533/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &

Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member ITA No. 1607 & 1533/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year 2010-11 Sabarmati Gas Limited ACIT Gandhinagar Plot No. 907, Sector-21, Circle, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar-382021 Vs (Respondent) PAN No: AAKCS0110N Joint Commissioner of Sabarmati Gas Limited Income Tax(OSD), Vs Plot No. 907, Sector-21, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar-382021 (Appellant) PAN No: AAKCS0110N Assessment Year 2012-13 & ITA No. 2002/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 Sabarmati Gas Limit…

M/S. Bajaj Foods Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1647/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsigh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…. 1,01,59,839 Total Rs. 3,09,93,719 13. He pointed out that this amount of Rs.3,09,93,719/- was sufficient for making the interest free advances of Rs.1,98,55,747/-. and in view of the settled proposition of law in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.410 ITR 466(SC) that where sufficient own interest free funds were available, the presumption is that the said funds were used for making interest free advances calling for no disallowance of interest, the issue be adjudicated following the said proposition. 14. Considering the above submissions of the assessee regarding the proposition of law settled by th…

M/S. Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2209/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

…tilized for working capital purposes is erroneous. iv) it is a settled legal principle that where surplus interest free funds are available, the presumption is that the said funds were utilized for the purposes of investments (CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. 401 ITR 466 (SC)). v) the loan was obtained for general corporate working capital purposes as is evident from the loan agreement (pages 2164-2166 of the paper book) and the RBI's approval (pages 2216-2218 of the paper book). vi) since the loan was obtained for working capital purposes, the loss arising on account of fluctuation in foreign currency ought to…

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-1, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1681/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR

Section 250(6)Section 92C

…19) (Cal). .Therefore addition made by the Ld. assessing officer under section 14A is required to be deleted. 20. We are aware of the proposition of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT (large tax buyer unit) vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 307 CTR 121 (SC) which was followed in another recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 9606 of 2011 dated 09.09.2021, to the effect that where there is a finding of fact that interest free funds available to the assessee was sufficient to meet its investment it will be presumed that the inve…

Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 345/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C

…eded the interest free loan advanced to the sister concern, disallowance of part of interest out of total interest paid by the assessee to the bank was not justified. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT(LTU) VS. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) has reiterated the same view. When we examine the amount of Investments at Rs.32.00 crore as against the availability of Share Capital and Reserves at Rs.802.78 crore, it becomes evident that the amount of such Investments is much less than the amount of Shareholders’ fund. We, therefore, order to delete the first component of disallowance…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 302/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C

…eded the interest free loan advanced to the sister concern, disallowance of part of interest out of total interest paid by the assessee to the bank was not justified. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT(LTU) VS. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) has reiterated the same view. When we examine the amount of Investments at Rs.32.00 crore as against the availability of Share Capital and Reserves at Rs.802.78 crore, it becomes evident that the amount of such Investments is much less than the amount of Shareholders’ fund. We, therefore, order to delete the first component of disallowance…

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 146/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)

Section 43A

…ions, we are of the view that disallowance of interest expenses in the present case of Rs.49,42,473 made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." 57. The same view taken in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 where is held as follows:- “7. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the issue raises a pure question of fact. The High Court has noted the finding of the Tribunal that the interest free funds available to the ITA No.143 - 146/Bang/2021 Page 23 of 31 assessee were sufficient to meet its investment. Hence, it could be presumed that the in…

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 145/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)

Section 43A

…ions, we are of the view that disallowance of interest expenses in the present case of Rs.49,42,473 made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." 57. The same view taken in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 where is held as follows:- “7. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the issue raises a pure question of fact. The High Court has noted the finding of the Tribunal that the interest free funds available to the ITA No.143 - 146/Bang/2021 Page 23 of 31 assessee were sufficient to meet its investment. Hence, it could be presumed that the in…

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 144/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)

Section 43A

…ions, we are of the view that disallowance of interest expenses in the present case of Rs.49,42,473 made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." 57. The same view taken in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 where is held as follows:- “7. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the issue raises a pure question of fact. The High Court has noted the finding of the Tribunal that the interest free funds available to the ITA No.143 - 146/Bang/2021 Page 23 of 31 assessee were sufficient to meet its investment. Hence, it could be presumed that the in…

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 143/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)

Section 43A

…ions, we are of the view that disallowance of interest expenses in the present case of Rs.49,42,473 made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." 57. The same view taken in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 where is held as follows:- “7. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the issue raises a pure question of fact. The High Court has noted the finding of the Tribunal that the interest free funds available to the ITA No.143 - 146/Bang/2021 Page 23 of 31 assessee were sufficient to meet its investment. Hence, it could be presumed that the in…

Deccan Mechanical & Chemical Industires Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1663/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Deccan Mechanical & Chemical Vs. Dcit, Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8, Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Pune Alankar Cinema Building, Ist Floor, Above United Bank, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaacd7365G Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…ceeded the interest free loan advanced to the sister concern, disallowance of part of interest out of total interest paid by the assessee to the bank was not justified. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT(LTU) VS. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) has reiterated the same view. 6. When we examine the amount of Investments in the extant case at Rs.98.45 lakh as against the availability of Share Capital and Reserves at Rs.58.16 crore, it is manifested that the amount of such Investments is much less than the amount of shareholders’ fund. Respectfully following the precedent, we order…

Ub Ajanta Breweries Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2952/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ub Ajanta Breweries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Since Merged With United Breweries Circle-2, Ltd.,), Aurangabad Plot No.H-9 To 11, Midc Waluj, Aurangabad Pan : Aabca6594R Appellant Respondent

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

…eded the interest free loan advanced to the sister concern, disallowance of part of interest out of total interest paid by the assessee to the bank was not justified. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT(LTU) VS. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) has reiterated the same view. 4 UB Ajanta Breweries Pvt. Ltd., 5. When we examine the amount of Investments at Rs.8.55 crore as against the availability of Share Capital and Reserves at Rs.96.55 crore, it becomes evident that the amount of such Investments is much less than the amount of shareholders’ fund. Respectfully following the pre…

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Businss of Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 14A

…ted, no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made. In support, he relied upon the following decisions as well:- 1. CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505(Bom HC) 2. CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340(Bom HC) 3. CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) 4. CIT vs UTI Bank Ltd 32 taxmann.com 370 (Guj SC) 5. HDFC Bank Ltd DCIT 383 ITR 59 (Bom HC) 6. Yasham Bio Sciencies Pvt Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.2723/M/2017 order dated 25-09-2020(TMum) 7.DCIT vs. Mentor Capital Ltd ITA No.6329/M/18 order dated 29/01/2020(TMum) 8.S Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.79/M/2015 order dated 03-08-2020 (…

Dcm Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

ITA 603/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…hen, no disallowance of any part of the interest expenditure is warranted is supported by the following judicial pronouncements. • South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT, C.A. No. 9606/2011 decided on 09.09.2021 - Supreme Court • CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) • Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) • Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) • HT Media Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2017) 399 ITR 576(Del); • CIT v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 159 (Del); • CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Del); CIT Vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Dcm Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 183/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…hen, no disallowance of any part of the interest expenditure is warranted is supported by the following judicial pronouncements. • South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT, C.A. No. 9606/2011 decided on 09.09.2021 - Supreme Court • CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) • Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) • Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) • HT Media Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2017) 399 ITR 576(Del); • CIT v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 159 (Del); • CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Del); CIT Vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 882/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 28Section 37(1)

…. In this regard, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electric Supplu Co Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC). The assessee has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd 307 CTR 121 (SC), CIT vs Hotel Savera 229 ITR 795 (Mad) and S.A. Builders Vs CIT(A) 288 ITR 1(SC). 33. The Ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has not made any :-25-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 reasons for not charging interest on loans given…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 881/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 28Section 37(1)

…. In this regard, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electric Supplu Co Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC). The assessee has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd 307 CTR 121 (SC), CIT vs Hotel Savera 229 ITR 795 (Mad) and S.A. Builders Vs CIT(A) 288 ITR 1(SC). 33. The Ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has not made any :-25-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 reasons for not charging interest on loans given…

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.

M/S. Tridhaatu Ventures LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO-27(3)(4), Mumbai

Acme Chem Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 10(1), Kolkata

Sabarmati Gas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Gandhinagar vs. Sabarmati Gas Limited, Gandhinagar

M/S. Bajaj Foods Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad

M/S. Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-1, Ahmedabad

Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd, Pune

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Deccan Mechanical & Chemical Industires Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

Ub Ajanta Breweries Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Businss of Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

Dcm Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Dcm Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai