CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

ACIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to M/S Bellissimo Hi-Rise Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…er book at Page–86, we find that it has a capital of Rs. 360.17 crore, which is more than the loan advanced by the assessee to Gangotri Exim Private Limited. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), held that if funds are available with the assessee, which are sufficient to meet the investment, then the presumption would arise that the investment is made out of funds so available with the assessee and, therefore, no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, the impugned or…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…vailable with the respondent - assessee was far in excess of the advance given. Tribunal further noted that the Revenue does not dispute the said finding and relying on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 135/313 ITR 340, affirmed the deletion made by the first appellate authority. 7. We have perused the decision of this Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that if there are funds available with the assessee, both, interest-free and overdraft and/ or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of…

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

…ITA Nos.2968/Mum/2015 & 1665/Mum/2019 ITA Nos. 3307/Mum/2015 & 2428/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 Page 1 of 51 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA Nos.2968/Mum/2015 and 1665/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 Ambuja Cement Limited .…………………………Appellant (formerly known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) Elegant Business Park, MIDC Cross Road B, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 059 [PAN: AAACG0569P] Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai ……………...…………Respondent ITA…

Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formerly Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

…ITA Nos.2968/Mum/2015 & 1665/Mum/2019 ITA Nos. 3307/Mum/2015 & 2428/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 Page 1 of 51 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA Nos.2968/Mum/2015 and 1665/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 Ambuja Cement Limited .…………………………Appellant (formerly known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) Elegant Business Park, MIDC Cross Road B, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 059 [PAN: AAACG0569P] Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai ……………...…………Respondent ITA…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Schoolnet India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

…ncome of relevant year. 4.8 When the assessee has sufficient interest-free fund in excess of interest-bearing fund, disallowance u/s 14A cannot be made. The same is been supported by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilites & Power Ltd (313 ITR 340). Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of (Ashok Apparels (P) Ltd) 106 taxamnn.com 63, has held that where revenue failed to establish that interest bearing funds were utilized for making exempt investment, no disallowance under section 14A could have been made. 4.9 In the present case the appellant has made investment during the year under cons…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai

…on the order passed by his predecessor for the A.Y. 2013-14 dated 06/11/2017 and by placing reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) deleted the disallowance of interest made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. The ld. CIT(A) however upheld the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. With regard to yet another submission made by the assessee that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act per se could not be made in the instant case as the investments were admitted…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai

…on the order passed by his predecessor for the A.Y. 2013-14 dated 06/11/2017 and by placing reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) deleted the disallowance of interest made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. The ld. CIT(A) however upheld the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. With regard to yet another submission made by the assessee that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act per se could not be made in the instant case as the investments were admitted…

Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

…on the order passed by his predecessor for the A.Y. 2013-14 dated 06/11/2017 and by placing reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) deleted the disallowance of interest made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. The ld. CIT(A) however upheld the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. With regard to yet another submission made by the assessee that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act per se could not be made in the instant case as the investments were admitted…

Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

…on the order passed by his predecessor for the A.Y. 2013-14 dated 06/11/2017 and by placing reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) deleted the disallowance of interest made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. The ld. CIT(A) however upheld the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. With regard to yet another submission made by the assessee that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act per se could not be made in the instant case as the investments were admitted…

JCIT (OSD) Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd., Mumbai

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

…Crores (Rs.61.60 – Rs.8.58 Crores), which would cover the interest free advances given to the aforesaid parties. Hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in 366 ITR 505, we direct the ld. AO to delete the interest disallowance made in respect of advances given to parties listed in Sr.No.7,8,11,12,13,16, 17 & 18 of the table above. 3.18. The grounds raised by the assessee and by the Revenue are disposed off in the above mentioned manner. 16 ITA No. 1489…

M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. - 14, Mumbai

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

…Crores (Rs.61.60 – Rs.8.58 Crores), which would cover the interest free advances given to the aforesaid parties. Hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in 366 ITR 505, we direct the ld. AO to delete the interest disallowance made in respect of advances given to parties listed in Sr.No.7,8,11,12,13,16, 17 & 18 of the table above. 3.18. The grounds raised by the assessee and by the Revenue are disposed off in the above mentioned manner. 16 ITA No. 1489…

Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result with the above discussion Ground No-4 raised by the assessee is dismissed, as we don’t see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2Nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.Tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Adepp8750F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Cc- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.01.2020 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. PAN: ADEPP8750F ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT, CC- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar IT Park, 6th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 18/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 14/10/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal…

Nayara Energy Limited (on Behalf of Merged Entity Vadinar Oil Terminal Limited), Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.777/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nayara Energy Ltd (On Acit, Central Circle-2(1) बिधम/ Behalf Of Merged Entity Room No. 804, Pratishtha Vs. Vadinar Oil Terminal Ltd) Bhavan, Old Cgo 5Th Floor, Jet Airways Annexe, M. K. Road, Godrej Bkc, G- Block, Plot Mumbai-400020. C-68, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2626D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 36(1) (Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act The Act - Rs.149.80 Crores 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) & Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.149.80 Crores Pertaining To Loans Of Rs.1253.53 Crores Granted To Related Parties Contending Them To Be Interest Free Without Appreciating The Fact, That Out Of The Total Amount, Only Security Deposits Of Rs.96.53 Crores Are Interest Free Refundable

…free) for business purpose was sourced from its own funds and for that preposition relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High ITA Ns. 777/Mum/2022 A.Ys. 2016-17 Nayara Energy Ltd. Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that “when the assessee is possessed of mixed funds which include its own funds in sufficient quantity, a presumption that its own funds were utilized for the advances is to be drawn”. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not agree and confirmed the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. Per contra the…

M/S. Keva Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT -15(2) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…al argument assessee-company relied on the decisions of a) S.A. Builders Ltd Vs CIT (2007) 288 ITR-1 (SC.) b) CIT Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 377(Del). c) Jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). d) East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. CIT 224 ITR 627 (SC.) [1997] e) Wool Combers of India Ltd. [1981] 7 Taxman 188 (Cal) 6. As far as factual argument of advancing the loans interest free for the purchase of property no evidence in any form has been provided by the assessee before and Ld. CIT (A). 7. AO was not agreed with the lega…

M/S. Samira Constructions (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result Ground no-3 is fully allowed

Bench: Shrikuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsamira Constructions (India) Ltd. G-8, Shrikant Chambers Next To R.K. Studio, Sion Tromboy Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aalcs6406L ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit- Cc-6(2), Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Vinita Shah Respondent By : Sh. K.C. Kanojiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10.02.2021 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…servation we direct the AO to work out the figure of interest disallowance considering the figure of Rs 45.12 Lacs being assessee’s own fund. For this we relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utility and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340(Bom). We further direct the AO to delete the addition of interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) after considering assessee’s own funds as mentioned above. It is directed in clear terms no addition to income on this ground can be made, the only effect of this working to be done by AO will be on the amount of Interest capitalised by the assessee and carr…