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 367,368 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 Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1352/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…of share capital and reserve of ₹ 539.75 crores whereas the advances given to subsidiaries and related concerns were of only ₹ 159.69 crores and therefore relying on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of reliance utilities and powers Ltd 313 ITR 340, he held that the presumption is available in favour of the assessee that no interest-bearing funds have been utilized for the above interest free loans and advances. The learned departmental representative could not show any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A. Therefore, we confirm the action of the learned CIT – A in deleting the abo…

M/S. Hemavathy Power & Light Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1820/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ere cannot be any disallowance of finance cost u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.67 of 2015 and Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340. The ld. AR brought to our attention the Balance sheet for the year ended 31.3.2011 to show that own funds are more than the amount advanced to sister concerns and therefore the ratio laid down in above decisions are applicable to the assessee’s case where no disallowance is warranted. 14. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the CIT(Appeals). She…

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2719/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ere cannot be any disallowance of finance cost u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.67 of 2015 and Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340. The ld. AR brought to our attention the Balance sheet for the year ended 31.3.2011 to show that own funds are more than the amount advanced to sister concerns and therefore the ratio laid down in above decisions are applicable to the assessee’s case where no disallowance is warranted. 14. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the CIT(Appeals). She…

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2718/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ere cannot be any disallowance of finance cost u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.67 of 2015 and Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340. The ld. AR brought to our attention the Balance sheet for the year ended 31.3.2011 to show that own funds are more than the amount advanced to sister concerns and therefore the ratio laid down in above decisions are applicable to the assessee’s case where no disallowance is warranted. 14. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the CIT(Appeals). She…

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2717/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ere cannot be any disallowance of finance cost u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.67 of 2015 and Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340. The ld. AR brought to our attention the Balance sheet for the year ended 31.3.2011 to show that own funds are more than the amount advanced to sister concerns and therefore the ratio laid down in above decisions are applicable to the assessee’s case where no disallowance is warranted. 14. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the CIT(Appeals). She…

Guardian Nutrition & Health Supplements Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4628/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Senior DR

…sufficient interest free funds the right of attribution lies with the assessee and AO cannot insist upon one to one nexus between the funds. This view is duly corroborated by Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505. 4 ITA No.4628/Del./2019 This aspect needs to be considered by the AO in making the disallowance which has not been done. 7. Furthermore, authorities below have shown that there is abnormal increase in sale to related parties, hence the debt is not normal. In our considered opinion, this plank is not accep…

T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2761/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s funds with it for making advance to TVS Srichakra Ltd., according to us, in such situation, no disallowance has been made in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 8.5 Accordingly, we remit this issue back to the file of the AO with the above directions. This issue is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The next issue in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2754/Chny/2019 for the AY14-15 is as regards to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) stating the disallowance made in respect of freight charges paid for non-ded…

T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2760/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s funds with it for making advance to TVS Srichakra Ltd., according to us, in such situation, no disallowance has been made in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 8.5 Accordingly, we remit this issue back to the file of the AO with the above directions. This issue is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The next issue in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2754/Chny/2019 for the AY14-15 is as regards to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) stating the disallowance made in respect of freight charges paid for non-ded…

T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2759/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s funds with it for making advance to TVS Srichakra Ltd., according to us, in such situation, no disallowance has been made in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 8.5 Accordingly, we remit this issue back to the file of the AO with the above directions. This issue is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The next issue in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2754/Chny/2019 for the AY14-15 is as regards to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) stating the disallowance made in respect of freight charges paid for non-ded…

T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2758/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s funds with it for making advance to TVS Srichakra Ltd., according to us, in such situation, no disallowance has been made in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 8.5 Accordingly, we remit this issue back to the file of the AO with the above directions. This issue is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The next issue in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2754/Chny/2019 for the AY14-15 is as regards to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) stating the disallowance made in respect of freight charges paid for non-ded…

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2754/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s funds with it for making advance to TVS Srichakra Ltd., according to us, in such situation, no disallowance has been made in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 8.5 Accordingly, we remit this issue back to the file of the AO with the above directions. This issue is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The next issue in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2754/Chny/2019 for the AY14-15 is as regards to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) stating the disallowance made in respect of freight charges paid for non-ded…

M/S. First Light Properties P. Ltd.(Earstwhile Known As M/S. Sumer Builders P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC, 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed and stand of AO is confirmed

ITA 1768/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S First Light Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As M/S Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd.) 205, Commerce House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, For, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacs7947P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Sh. Sandip Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Sh. Sandip Raj, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…fore the disallowance under section 14A of the Act is not warranted. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements; 1) CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bombay) 2) CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Limited – (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) 3) HDFC Bank Limited vs DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bombay) 13. It is a settled position of law that where there is no exempt income earned, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D can be made. In this background, ground no.3 of the assessee is allowed and 14 disallowance of Rs. 41, 79,740/- is deleted. Moreover, as…

Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Cir -6(2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 929/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has sufficient own funds in excess of investments made in shares…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 829/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has sufficient own funds in excess of investments made in shares…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 301/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has sufficient own funds in excess of investments made in shares…

M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2150/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has sufficient own funds in excess of investments made in shares…

M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2149/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has sufficient own funds in excess of investments made in shares…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2078/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has sufficient own funds in excess of investments made in shares…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2077/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has sufficient own funds in excess of investments made in shares…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 3219/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has sufficient own funds in excess of investments made in shares…