CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

313 ITR 340High Court2009#10 most cited

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

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

2,118

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. · Section 14A · Rule 8D · interest free advances · disallowance of interest expenditure · own funds · interest-free funds

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.

DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…tune of Rs.593.69 cr. far exceeded the total investments made Rs.232.14 cr. and the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not warranted in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank 438 ITR 1 and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and others. The ld AR further submitted that this contention has been accepted by the Hon’ble ITAT in the Assessee’s case for Assessment Year 2007-08. With regard to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) the ld AR submitted that the investments that have yielded exempt income alone can be considered. The ld AR placed reliance on the d…

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…tune of Rs.593.69 cr. far exceeded the total investments made Rs.232.14 cr. and the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not warranted in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank 438 ITR 1 and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and others. The ld AR further submitted that this contention has been accepted by the Hon’ble ITAT in the Assessee’s case for Assessment Year 2007-08. With regard to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) the ld AR submitted that the investments that have yielded exempt income alone can be considered. The ld AR placed reliance on the d…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…tune of Rs.593.69 cr. far exceeded the total investments made Rs.232.14 cr. and the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not warranted in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank 438 ITR 1 and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and others. The ld AR further submitted that this contention has been accepted by the Hon’ble ITAT in the Assessee’s case for Assessment Year 2007-08. With regard to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) the ld AR submitted that the investments that have yielded exempt income alone can be considered. The ld AR placed reliance on the d…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…tune of Rs.593.69 cr. far exceeded the total investments made Rs.232.14 cr. and the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not warranted in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank 438 ITR 1 and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and others. The ld AR further submitted that this contention has been accepted by the Hon’ble ITAT in the Assessee’s case for Assessment Year 2007-08. With regard to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) the ld AR submitted that the investments that have yielded exempt income alone can be considered. The ld AR placed reliance on the d…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…tune of Rs.593.69 cr. far exceeded the total investments made Rs.232.14 cr. and the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not warranted in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank 438 ITR 1 and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and others. The ld AR further submitted that this contention has been accepted by the Hon’ble ITAT in the Assessee’s case for Assessment Year 2007-08. With regard to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) the ld AR submitted that the investments that have yielded exempt income alone can be considered. The ld AR placed reliance on the d…

Tech Mahindra Limited (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2463/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…rned by the assessee was with regard to an investment of Rs.4.25 crores as on 01.04.2008 and Rs.9.52 crores as on 31.03.2009. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. (in ITA No. 330 of 2012), wherein it was held that when the interest free funds are more than the investment there can be a presumption that such investments were made out of the own funds and not borrowed funds. The assessee has also relied on the decision of the Tribunal for the said proposition in the case of ACIT vs…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2282/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…rned by the assessee was with regard to an investment of Rs.4.25 crores as on 01.04.2008 and Rs.9.52 crores as on 31.03.2009. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. (in ITA No. 330 of 2012), wherein it was held that when the interest free funds are more than the investment there can be a presumption that such investments were made out of the own funds and not borrowed funds. The assessee has also relied on the decision of the Tribunal for the said proposition in the case of ACIT vs…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Katni, Katni vs. M/S. Gajraj Mining Pvt. L:Td., Singrauli

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT(DR)
Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…borrowed funds have been utilized for advancing the loans and even otherwise also such loans were given for the purpose of business. Hence, keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. 354 ITR 630 (Guj.) & CIT vs. Torrent Power Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 474 (Guj.), keeping in view we hold that no disallowance on account of interest is called for. Order of the ld. CIT(A) on this grounds is affirmed. Disallowance of Expenses: 7. The Assessing Off…

M/S. Vinayak Agro Industries, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri N.K.Rout, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…shkumer Shah reported in (2018) 406 ITR 326 (Guj.) upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 261 Taxman 1 (SC); (vii) PCIT Vs Sunhill Ceramics P. Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) TMI 1563 (Guj.); (viii) PCIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd. Reported in (2020) 423 ITR 220 (Bom.); (ix) Zirconia Cera Tech Glazes Vs DCIT reported in (2019) 178 ITO 526 (Tri.-Ahmd.) = (2019) 109 taxmann.com 73 (Tri.-Ahmd.); 3. The sanction have been granted under Section 151 in a mechanical manner and without existence of the jurisdictional facts. The Appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Kris…

M/S. Vinayak Agro Industries, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri N.K.Rout, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…shkumer Shah reported in (2018) 406 ITR 326 (Guj.) upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 261 Taxman 1 (SC); (vii) PCIT Vs Sunhill Ceramics P. Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) TMI 1563 (Guj.); (viii) PCIT Vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd. Reported in (2020) 423 ITR 220 (Bom.); (ix) Zirconia Cera Tech Glazes Vs DCIT reported in (2019) 178 ITO 526 (Tri.-Ahmd.) = (2019) 109 taxmann.com 73 (Tri.-Ahmd.); 3. The sanction have been granted under Section 151 in a mechanical manner and without existence of the jurisdictional facts. The Appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Kris…

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…be that the investments in question were made by the assessee from the interest-free funds so available with it. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). In its aforesaid order the Hon‟ble High Court had observed that in case if the assessee had advanced interest-free amounts out of its mixed funds i.e interest free and interest bearing funds lying in common pool, then, the presumption would be that the amount so advanced was from the interest-free funds available with the 21 ITA . No. 169…

M/S. Neelkanth Mansion and Infrastrucutre Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 442/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Neelkanth Mansions & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd 5Th Floor, Fine House, Anandji Lane, M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai- 400 077 Pan: Aaacn1245R ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle 14(1) (1) 4Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, SR. AR
Section 10Section 14ASection 23(1)(a)Section 250

…t as taken by AO is Rs. 16, 41, 92,322/-, which far away from interest free funds available with the assessee. On this issue we respectfully relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. CIT 67 Taxmann.com 42 (Bom.). Now as far income received as share of profit from partnership firm, which is exempt u/s. 10(2A) of the Act is concerned, revenue is relied upon the 7 M/s. Neelkanth Mansion & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. decision of coordinate bench in the case of Vishnu Anant Mahajan vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3002/…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur vs. Mesers Narmada Drinks Private Limited, Bilaspur

In the result ground No. 2 & 3 of the appeal of the revenue stands rejected

ITA 89/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 89/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Narmada Drinks Private Limited Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) Pan: Aaacn5880C (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 92C

…s in securities for Rs 40,62,00,00 for the year under consideration the appellant during the assessment and in appeal has placed relevant material on record. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd in 313 ITR 340 and in the case of HDFC Bank Limited v DCIT 366 ITR 505 (Bom) the jurisdictional Raipur tribunal in the case of Goel Zenith Agro (P) Ltd in ITA No: 82/RPR/2016 dated 18.01.2019 held that once the assessee is possessed of interest free funds sufficient to make the investment in tax free securities, it is presumed that it has been paid for out of i…

Indianoil Adani Ventures Limited (Formerly Known As "Indian Oiltanking Limited"), Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 2402/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel a/w DeepaFor Respondent: Shri K.C Selvamani, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234D

…rranted. The Ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 taxmann.com 286 (SC) and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) C.O. No. 02/Mum/2012 & 1851/Mum/2017 Indian Oil Adani Ventures Ltd. 14. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. 15. We noticed that the AO has arrived at the disallowance under section 14A at 5% of the total investments made by the assessee at Rs. 7,50,000/-. i.e. 5% X Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) u…

M/S. S.R. Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 795/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 795/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. S.R. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 11(3), Kolkata Goenka House Vs 6, Alipore Park Road Kolkata - 700027 [Pan : Aaecs2655N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Puja Somani, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 06/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Investment In Shares, Mutual Fund, Intercorporate Deposit Etc. Income Of Rs.27,42,770/- Declared In The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-13 Furnished On 26/09/2012. Case Selected For Scrutiny & After Making Certain Additions/Disallowances, Income Assessed At Rs.65,90,380/-. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & Partly Succeeded.

For Appellant: Smt. Puja Somani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 139Section 14ASection 194JSection 250Section 250(6)

…nterest bearing funds have been applied during the year or preceding years for making the investments in equity shares and in absence thereof and in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340, it can be safely presumed that entire investment in dividend yielding shares were made out of its own funds. We accordingly delete the disallowance of 6 I.T.A. No. 795/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. S.R. Traders Pvt. Ltd. interest of Rs.32,54,001/-, made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) and allow Ground No. 5a). 8.1. Gr…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Group M Media (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are stand dismissed

ITA 3087/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhco No. 137/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2011-12) Group M Media (India) Vs. Dcit-12(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 145, 1 St Floor, 8Th Floor, Commerz Aayakar Bhavan, International Business M.K. Road, Park, Oberoi Garden Mumbai-400020 City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-12(2)(2) Vs. Group M Media (India) Room No. 145, 1 St Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 8Th Floor, Commerz M.K. Road, International Business Mumbai-400020 Park, Oberoi Garden City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh Rakh Date Of Hearing 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10 .2023

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh Rakh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…. 2014-15. Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay P a g e | 5 ITA No. 2760, 3087/Mum/2019 & CO 137/Mum/2021 M/s Group Media M (India) Pvt. Ltd. High Court in the case of CIT v/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of AO. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the year under consideration the assessee had given interest free loans/advances of ₹ 74,18,84,627/- to the suppliers and during the year, the assessee itself had received interest free advances from its suppliers to the amo…

Cyqyator Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2370/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2370 /मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2015-16) Cyquator Media Services Private Limited, 18Th Floor, A Wing Marathon Futurex, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaecp-0069-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle – 6(2)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jay Bhansali "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 21/06/2023, For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As Eight Grounds. All The Grounds Of Appeal Are In Respect Of A Single Issue I.E. Disallowance U/S. 14A Of 2 The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 [In Short ‘The Rules’].

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta
Section 14A

…account of interest expenditure, the said disallowance was made by the assessee wrongly and was not in conformity with the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 529 and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340. The assessee filed revised computation with revised working of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act before the Assessing Officer, however, the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The assessee raised the issue before the CIT(A) by way of additional ground of appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed the additional ground on merits. The ld. Authorized Repr…

Rajesh Agrawal, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 249/RPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.249/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Rajesh Agrawal C/O. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel Traders, 15/343, Main Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001. Pan : Acppa2905F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…presumed that the investments are made from the interest-free funds available with the assessee and not from borrowed funds. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). The Hon’ble High Court, while dealing with the issue, had held 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 funds generated or available with the company if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investme…

Strides Pharma Science Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM Strides Pharma Science Ltd. DCIT 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCS8104P : Shri Nishant Gandh, AR Assessee by Revenue by : Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR, Aditya M Rai Sr AR, Suresh Gaikwad SR AR Date of hearing: 17-02-023,23/06/2023 and 07/07/2023 Date of pronouncement : 05.10.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 1. This Appeal, ITA No. 1004/Mum/2021 for assessment Year 2016-1…

DCIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 644/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

…1 ITA Nos. 5818/Del/2017 & ITA 644, 1263, 2082 & 2083/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, G.T. Road, Panipat Circle, Panipat. PAN- AABCP1067E APPELLANT RESPONDENT AND A.Y. 2010-11 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Circle, Panipat. G.T. Road, Panipat. PAN- AABCP1067E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Satish Goel, CA…