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)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…stment of Rs.3,75,00,000/- far exceeds shareholders funds of Rs.433 crores as on 31.03.2011 and Rs.425 crores as on 31.03.2010. Referring to various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Curt in the case of HT Media vs. PCIT, 399 ITR 576 and CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338, he submitted that since own funds with the assessee far exceeds the investments which yielded dividend income there is no warrant to make any disallowance out of any interest ITAs No.230 & 574/De…

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…stment of Rs.3,75,00,000/- far exceeds shareholders funds of Rs.433 crores as on 31.03.2011 and Rs.425 crores as on 31.03.2010. Referring to various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Curt in the case of HT Media vs. PCIT, 399 ITR 576 and CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338, he submitted that since own funds with the assessee far exceeds the investments which yielded dividend income there is no warrant to make any disallowance out of any interest ITAs No.230 & 574/De…

Anamica Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8203/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 14Section 14ASection 4

…Nil Investments 3,08,76,900 13,80,70,375 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited reported in 366 ITR 505 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Limited reported in 410 ITR 466 he submitted that when the interest free funds are more than the investments made, the dividend income of which is exempt from tax, no disallowance of interest expenses can be made. 14. So far as Rule 8 D (2) (iii) is concerned the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the dividend received of Rs. 17,54,046/- the detail…

Modison Metals Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3999/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2014-15 Modison Metals Limited Vs. Acit, Circle 3(2), 33, Nariman Bhavan, 227, Nariman Mumbai. (Respondent) Point, Mumbai. Pan : Aaaca3768N (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

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

…s clear from the facts given hereinabove. Therefore both the authorities below have grossly erred while deciding the issue. The case of assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court upholding the order of Tribunal wherein it has been held that where interest-free funds available with assessee were sufficient to meet the investments, it could be presumed that the investment was made from interest-free funds available with the assessee.…

M/S. Goyal Ispat Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1755/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, D.R

Section 10Section 14A

…hence no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is called for as per the decision rendered by Karnataka High Court in the case of Micro Labs Limited (383 ITR 490)(Kar) and also the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Limited 410 ITR 466. Accordingly, he submitted that the interest disallowance made by the A.O. under rule 8D(2)(ii) should be deleted. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has made long term borrowings to the tune of Rs.3.51 crores while the investment made in the partnership firm is Rs.2.44 crores. Accordingly, he submitted that part of i…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. United Spirits Limited, UB Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R PER SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, A.M. : The…

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 612/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.484 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.C.Chanderkanta, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 80I

…see had sufficient own funds for the purpose of making the investments and accordingly ITA Nos.611 to 613/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14 following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT LTU Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 410 ITR 466 held that no disallowance of interest is warranted u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance calculated as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted by the ITAT. As for the disallowance of administrative expenses the ITAT noted that the substantial amount of interest had been earned by the assessee from its subsidiary companies where not much of…

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 611/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.484 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.C.Chanderkanta, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 80I

…see had sufficient own funds for the purpose of making the investments and accordingly ITA Nos.611 to 613/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14 following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT LTU Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 410 ITR 466 held that no disallowance of interest is warranted u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance calculated as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted by the ITAT. As for the disallowance of administrative expenses the ITAT noted that the substantial amount of interest had been earned by the assessee from its subsidiary companies where not much of…

M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, C-1, Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 485/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.484 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.C.Chanderkanta, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 80I

…see had sufficient own funds for the purpose of making the investments and accordingly ITA Nos.611 to 613/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14 following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT LTU Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 410 ITR 466 held that no disallowance of interest is warranted u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance calculated as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted by the ITAT. As for the disallowance of administrative expenses the ITAT noted that the substantial amount of interest had been earned by the assessee from its subsidiary companies where not much of…

M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-1, Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 484/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.484 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.C.Chanderkanta, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 80I

…see had sufficient own funds for the purpose of making the investments and accordingly ITA Nos.611 to 613/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14 following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT LTU Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 410 ITR 466 held that no disallowance of interest is warranted u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance calculated as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted by the ITAT. As for the disallowance of administrative expenses the ITAT noted that the substantial amount of interest had been earned by the assessee from its subsidiary companies where not much of…

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 613/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.484 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.C.Chanderkanta, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 80I

…see had sufficient own funds for the purpose of making the investments and accordingly ITA Nos.611 to 613/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14 following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT LTU Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 410 ITR 466 held that no disallowance of interest is warranted u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance calculated as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted by the ITAT. As for the disallowance of administrative expenses the ITAT noted that the substantial amount of interest had been earned by the assessee from its subsidiary companies where not much of…

Essel Propack Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2068/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhessel Propack Limited, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Top Floor, Times Tower, Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Room No. 563, 5Th Floor, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaace 1568L Appellant Respondednt

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

…crore only. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT versus Reliance Utility & Power Ltd (313 ITR 340 Bom), CIT 17 ITA 2068 /Mum/2016 Essel Propack Limited versus Reliance Industry Ltd (410 ITR 466 SC) and HDFC Bank Versus DCIT (383 ITR 529 Bom).s 18. On the other hand the learned DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 19. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. We have also deliberated on the various case laws relied by learned AR of the assess…

M/S Stovekraft India, Baddi vs. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 885/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.885/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: ShriManoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: ShriAbhishek Pal Garg, Addl CIT

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,“बी ”च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.885/CHD/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/s Stovekraft India, The DCIT, Circle, बनाम 307/2, Village Buranwala, Parwanoo Barotiwala, Baddi, Distt. Solan H.P. "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAZFS6497G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : ShriManoj Kumar, CA राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue by : ShriAbhishek Pal Garg, Addl C…

M/S Ok Play India Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5951/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiok Play India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. 17-18, Roz Ka Meo, Circle-3, Industrial Estate, Nuh Mewat, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aaaco2623G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A

…56.35 lakhs. It was stated that as the assessee has adequate non- interest bearing funds, the above disallowance cannot be made. The issue is clearly covered in favour of the assessee by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd 401 ITR 466 as the assessee has sufficient interest free funds available which were sufficient to meet the amount of advances given to the creditors, no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) can be made. In view of this we direct the ld AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 687397/-. The ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee i…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 140/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019

Section 250(6)

…respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs. CIT’ 379 ITR 347 (SC) and also on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT (LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.’ [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC). Thus, as per the settled law no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act is warranted on this issue. This ground is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. 55. Ground No. 9:- Ground No. 9 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. This appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 56. The assessee in ITA N…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 139/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019

Section 250(6)

…respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs. CIT’ 379 ITR 347 (SC) and also on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT (LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.’ [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC). Thus, as per the settled law no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act is warranted on this issue. This ground is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. 55. Ground No. 9:- Ground No. 9 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. This appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 56. The assessee in ITA N…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 547/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019

Section 250(6)

…respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs. CIT’ 379 ITR 347 (SC) and also on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT (LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.’ [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC). Thus, as per the settled law no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act is warranted on this issue. This ground is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. 55. Ground No. 9:- Ground No. 9 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. This appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 56. The assessee in ITA N…

Unipatch Rubber Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 9231/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am 3Mm Arcffct . / Ita No.9231/Del/2019 M < Ul Wk / Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…can cover the investments made during the year of Rs. 19.04 Crores which is part of the total investments at Rs. 54.62 Crores at the close of the year. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 410 ITR 466 (SC), we find no merit in the aforesaid disallowance made on account of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of Income Tax Rules. The same is deleted. 7. Now coming to the next disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. The limited issue which has been raised by the assessee before us is that the disallowance, if any…

The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Artex Apparels, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the said ground of appeal is also allowed

ITA 1450/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri T. S. Kapoorआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1450/Ahd/2017 With Cross Objection No.24/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Parimal S. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr.D.R

Section 10ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…per book page no.26 where the copy of partners’ capital account was placed and therefore, it was argued that learned CIT(A) had rightly allowed relief to the assessee. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following: > CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. - 410 ITR 466 (SC); > CIT vs. Torrent Power Ltd. - 363 ITR 474 (Guj.); > CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. - 354 ITR 630 (Guj); > CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. - 352 ITR 583 (Guj); > CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. - 313 ITR 340 (Bom); ITA No. 1450/Ahd/17 with CO No.24/Ahd/19 [M/s. Artex Apparels] A.Y. 2012-13 - 7 - > Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CI…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 1243/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 12ASection 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…tion would arise that investments would be out of the interest free funds generated or available with the company, if the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 has held “Tribunal having found that the interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment, it could be presumed that funds were given to subsidiaries out of interest free funds and therefore, interest referable to funds given to subsidiaries is allowable as deduction under sec. 36(1)(iii)”. Hence, the observation…

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.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Anamica Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

Modison Metals Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

M/S. Goyal Ispat Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(3), Bengaluru

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, C-1, Ludhiana

M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-1, Ludhiana

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana

Essel Propack Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Mumbai

M/S Stovekraft India, Baddi vs. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

M/S Ok Play India Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

Unipatch Rubber Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Artex Apparels, Ahmedabad

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Jaipur