CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

313 ITR 340High Court2009#8 most cited

What is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available, and investments are made from mixed funds, it is presumed that the investments are made from the interest-free funds, thus precluding the disallowance of interest expenditure.

2,114

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. · 313 ITR 340 · Section 36(1)(iii) · Section 14A · mixed fund theory · disallowance of interest expenditure · interest-free funds · investments from own funds · presumption · commercial expediency · book profits · Section 115JB

Also reported as

178 Taxmann 13513 DTR 237178 Taxmann.com 135284 CTR 414

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 8DSection 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

interest free advancesdisallowance of interest expendituresection 36(1)(iii)disallowance under section 14acommercial expediencydisallowance u/s 14asection 14abook profitssection 115jsection 36(1)section 36section 115jb

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…t, the money used for the purpose of investment came out of borrowed out funds and not out of own funds. Assessee draw its support for this proposition based on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 9.15. Ld.AR provided the working of estimated tax free income as per Section 14A(2) for the year under consideration:- Investment as Investment as Particulars Amount (Rs.) on 1.04.2009 on 31.03.2010 Total Estimated Tax Free Income — — 6,82,82,99,201 Expenditure Disallowable u/s 14A Under Clause I of Rule 8D (2) — — 0 Under Clause II of R…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…t, the money used for the purpose of investment came out of borrowed out funds and not out of own funds. Assessee draw its support for this proposition based on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 9.15. Ld.AR provided the working of estimated tax free income as per Section 14A(2) for the year under consideration:- Investment as Investment as Particulars Amount (Rs.) on 1.04.2009 on 31.03.2010 Total Estimated Tax Free Income — — 6,82,82,99,201 Expenditure Disallowable u/s 14A Under Clause I of Rule 8D (2) — — 0 Under Clause II of R…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…as actually incurred to earn dividend income, disallowance under section 14A cannot be made on the basis of mere presumption:  CIT v. Hero Cycles : 323 ITR 518(P&H)  CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd.: 336 ITR 434 (P&H)  CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom)  CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.: 339 ITR 632 (Bom)  CIT Vs Ms.Sushma Kapoor: 319 ITR 299 (Delhi) Reliance in this regard is further placed on the following decisions wherein the Courts and various benches of the Tribunal have repeatedly held that recording of satisfaction is condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction to apply Ru…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…as actually incurred to earn dividend income, disallowance under section 14A cannot be made on the basis of mere presumption:  CIT v. Hero Cycles : 323 ITR 518(P&H)  CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd.: 336 ITR 434 (P&H)  CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom)  CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.: 339 ITR 632 (Bom)  CIT Vs Ms.Sushma Kapoor: 319 ITR 299 (Delhi) Reliance in this regard is further placed on the following decisions wherein the Courts and various benches of the Tribunal have repeatedly held that recording of satisfaction is condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction to apply Ru…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…as actually incurred to earn dividend income, disallowance under section 14A cannot be made on the basis of mere presumption:  CIT v. Hero Cycles : 323 ITR 518(P&H)  CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd.: 336 ITR 434 (P&H)  CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom)  CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.: 339 ITR 632 (Bom)  CIT Vs Ms.Sushma Kapoor: 319 ITR 299 (Delhi) Reliance in this regard is further placed on the following decisions wherein the Courts and various benches of the Tribunal have repeatedly held that recording of satisfaction is condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction to apply Ru…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 9469/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9469/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…re Rs.4531.55 crores whereas investment in the securities were only Rs. 169,39,49,514/-. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: 1. CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 2. CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) COM 3. HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) 8. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and delete the disallowance made by the AO under rule 8D2(ii) of Rs.7,93,07,972/-." Generally interest bearing borrowed funds had been invested in assets…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 9468/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9469/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…re Rs.4531.55 crores whereas investment in the securities were only Rs. 169,39,49,514/-. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: 1. CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 2. CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) COM 3. HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) 8. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and delete the disallowance made by the AO under rule 8D2(ii) of Rs.7,93,07,972/-." Generally interest bearing borrowed funds had been invested in assets…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 9467/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 9469/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Export Import Bank Of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Pan : Aaace2769D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…re Rs.4531.55 crores whereas investment in the securities were only Rs. 169,39,49,514/-. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: 1. CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 2. CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) COM 3. HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) 8. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and delete the disallowance made by the AO under rule 8D2(ii) of Rs.7,93,07,972/-." Generally interest bearing borrowed funds had been invested in assets…

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT v. Reliance U and CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and ilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and accordingly accordingly deleted deleted the the disallowance disallowance for for indirect indire interest expenditure. 5.3 But in respect of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) But in respect of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) But in respect of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) sustai…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT v. Reliance U and CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and ilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and accordingly accordingly deleted deleted the the disallowance disallowance for for indirect indire interest expenditure. 5.3 But in respect of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) But in respect of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) But in respect of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) sustai…

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is\ndismissed whereas appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly\nallowed and appeal for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

…earning shares and\ntherefore, no disallowance for interest on proportionate basis was\ncalled for. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble\nBombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505\nand CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and\naccordingly deleted the disallowance for indirect interest\nexpenditure.\n5.3 But in respect of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A)\nsustained the disallowance at the rate of 0.5% of the average\ninvestment. Following the decision of the Special Bench in Vireet\nInvestment Ltd. reported in 165 ITD 27, the ld CIT(A) directed the\nAssessin…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3971 and 3991/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 and 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Income Tax, Limited Circle-3(4), B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, Mumbai Vs. 22 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mahalaxmi, Cumballa Hill S.O Mumbai - 400026 (PAN: AAACG2207L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, CA Revenue : Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.12.2025 and 22.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRA…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3971 and 3991/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 and 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Income Tax, Limited Circle-3(4), B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, Mumbai Vs. 22 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mahalaxmi, Cumballa Hill S.O Mumbai - 400026 (PAN: AAACG2207L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, CA Revenue : Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.12.2025 and 22.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRA…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

…st investments of about Rs. 3,041 crore, and therefore it was to be presumed that the investments were made out of interest-free funds, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 22. The learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting the analysis only to the question of availability of interest-free funds and the applicability of Rule 8D(2)(ii). According to the learned DR, the learned CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) relating to administrative expenditure, which is i…

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3510/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

…st investments of about Rs. 3,041 crore, and therefore it was to be presumed that the investments were made out of interest-free funds, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 22. The learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting the analysis only to the question of availability of interest-free funds and the applicability of Rule 8D(2)(ii). According to the learned DR, the learned CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) relating to administrative expenditure, which is i…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. MILESTONE FINSTOCK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1180/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..…………..………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd..……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 62A, Hazra Road, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aaccm0280B] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N S Saini, Ar & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Of The Cit(Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 1075 Days & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are As Under: Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 73

…interest-free funds available with the assessee company are much more in comparison to the advances made. We find that in this context, the Ld. CIT (A) relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Powers Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 whereas, in the similar facts of the case, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of East India Pharmaceutical Works reported in 224 ITR 627 where the Court had held if interest-free fund available with the assessee was sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed th…

NIPUN MALHOTRA,MANDI vs. ITO, WARD, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 81/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nipun Malhotra, The Ito, 135/A, Jawahar Nagar, Vs Ward, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Mandi (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ablpm6589N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) A.Y.2013-14 5 e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 6. The assessee has demonstrated that it has more interest free funds than the advances given to three individuals without charging interest. As far as the sum given to Goverdhan Bottling Plant is concerned, it is an amount given…

M/S KNITWELL INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1609/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1609/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2014-15 M/S Knitwell India Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Plot No. 278, Industrial Area, Vs Circle 1(1), Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacck4673L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 O R D E R Physical Hearing Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…e presumed that such investments have been made from the surplus funds available with the assessee. For harbouring this belief, Tribunal has made reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340. Apart from the above, we are fortified with following decisions : a) ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. 175 ITD 365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufa…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. VASCON ENGINEERS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed

ITA 1105/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Vs. Vascon Engineers Limited, Of Income Tax, Pune. Vascon Weikfileld Chamber, Opposite Hyatt Hotel, Nagar Road, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacv1249F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ajit Tolani & Darpan Kriplani Revenue By Smt. Indira R. Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.02.2025Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3/4) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 23.01.2017 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(u)

…available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments. With this conclusion, weunhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the learned ITAT favouring the assessees.” Unquote. 2.4) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 has held as under : Quote, “The principle therefore would be that if there are funds available both interest-free and overdraft and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest- free fund generated or available with the company, if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investments.” Un…

BALKRISHNA RATHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2328/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…d judicial precedents. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that own funds of the assessee were substantially higher than the investments, hence presumption applies that investments were made out of own funds, as held in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340, Bom HC). 3 The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs.16,63,575/-, ignoring the fact that investments yielding exempt income were made out of own funds in earlier years and no borrowed funds were utilized. 4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the year…

Showing 1–20 of 2,114 · Page 1 of 106

...