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.

Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1888/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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 1513/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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…

Kayer India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6146/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Senior DR
Section 14A

…h the available interest free funds and investment. We note that right of attribution lies with the assessee. It has been so held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340. 6. In this view of the matter, ld. CIT (A)’s order is not legally sustainable. In our considered opinion, the interest of justice would be served if the matter is remitted back to the AO. The AO is directed to examine as to whether assessee has sufficient interest free funds or not. We make it clear that it is a settled law that right of attribu…

Pramod B Ranka, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2712/PUN/2017[2013--14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2712/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kisore B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…expenditure heads; totaling to Rs.19,51,288/-, learned counsel’s sole argument before us is that this tax-payer’s non bearing funds are much more than corresponding investments made for deriving exempt income. He quotes CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 that necessary presumption in such an instances is of investment of non interest bearing funds only. Mr.Phadke further sought to highlight the fact hon’ble apex court’s latest decision in (2021) 13 taxmann.com 178 (SC) South Indian Bank Vs. CIT has also reiterated the very legal position. 3. The Revenue placed strong reliance of both the lower a…

DCIT, Cir-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2234/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…ITA No. 2234/KOL/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 2234/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,......................................Appellant Circle-9(1), Kolkata, Room No. 22, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation,..........................................Respondent 4th Floor, DVC Tower, VIP Road, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 [P…

Icici Home Finance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani
Section 14ASection 201Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(viil)Section 37(1)

…e for home finance business and could not be utilized for any other purpose; reference to the agreement with Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 27.09.2000 (b) Share capital and reserves exceeded investments; HDFC Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mum) and CIT v Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 340 (Born) relied upon. Submissions: A. No disallowance of interest in the preceding year — Assessment order for A.Y.2007-08 (paragraph 6.3, pg. 4) submitted. M/s. ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., • Other than investment of Rs.50,00,00,000 in Cumulative Preference Shares, tax free investments as on 31.03.2009 remained the same compared with tax free…

Dr Shrikant Anant Bokil, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara Circle, Satara

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 19/PUN/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…ore. 5. Next comes section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance of Rs.1,16,177/- wherein the assessee’s sole argument in tune with his pleadings is that of availability of sufficient interest bearing funds in light of vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that necessary presumption in such an 3 Dr. Shrikant Anant Bokil instance is of divergent of interest free funds only. I find that this second issue requires more a factual reconciliation than in substantive adjudication. I therefore restore the same back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication and if it is found that the asse…

M/S Xindia Steels Limited, Koppal vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Soumya K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143

…t the beginning and end of the year worth Rs.367.92 crores and Rs.416.53 crores respectively. The interest free advances given by the assessee is Rs.87.30 crores as on 31.3.2013. It has been held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that where the interest free funds far exceed the value of investments, it should be considered that investments have been made out of interest free funds. Accordingly, the interest disallowance is not called for in the present case. 8. Even though the A.O. has observed that the Ld. A.R. has accepted for the addition of interest expenditure…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-3, Surat vs. Sh. Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 48/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153CSection 158BSection 254(1)

…the assessee is Rs.40.70 crores. Thus it is settled law when the reserve and surplus funds are far than the advance availed by the assessee. Therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). The AR for the assessee submits that assessee has shown similar interest payment and interest income however, no such disallowance was made in the earlier year. Thus, no different treatment can be adopted by Assessing Officer for the year under consideration. AYs 10-11, 14-15, 15-16 & 17-18 Dineshchandra D Koradia, Nagjibhai M Sakariya &…

Gmr Highways Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 495/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…CIT v. Microlabs Ltd (383 ITR 490) (Karnataka) [Page no. 456-460 of LPB-2] • CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) [Page no. 461-463 of LPB- 2] • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529)(Bom) [Page no. 464-476 of LPB- 2] • Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) [Page no.477-480 of LPB-2] • PCIT v. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd (130 taxmann.com 115) (Karnataka) [Page no. 481-484 of LPB-2] C. The Ld.AR then submitted that, it is a settled principle that, only such investments that yielded exempt income, should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r…

Gmr Highways Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1643/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…CIT v. Microlabs Ltd (383 ITR 490) (Karnataka) [Page no. 456-460 of LPB-2] • CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) [Page no. 461-463 of LPB- 2] • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529)(Bom) [Page no. 464-476 of LPB- 2] • Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) [Page no.477-480 of LPB-2] • PCIT v. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd (130 taxmann.com 115) (Karnataka) [Page no. 481-484 of LPB-2] C. The Ld.AR then submitted that, it is a settled principle that, only such investments that yielded exempt income, should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1744/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…CIT v. Microlabs Ltd (383 ITR 490) (Karnataka) [Page no. 456-460 of LPB-2] • CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) [Page no. 461-463 of LPB- 2] • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529)(Bom) [Page no. 464-476 of LPB- 2] • Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) [Page no.477-480 of LPB-2] • PCIT v. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd (130 taxmann.com 115) (Karnataka) [Page no. 481-484 of LPB-2] C. The Ld.AR then submitted that, it is a settled principle that, only such investments that yielded exempt income, should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1743/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…CIT v. Microlabs Ltd (383 ITR 490) (Karnataka) [Page no. 456-460 of LPB-2] • CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) [Page no. 461-463 of LPB- 2] • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529)(Bom) [Page no. 464-476 of LPB- 2] • Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) [Page no.477-480 of LPB-2] • PCIT v. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd (130 taxmann.com 115) (Karnataka) [Page no. 481-484 of LPB-2] C. The Ld.AR then submitted that, it is a settled principle that, only such investments that yielded exempt income, should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1742/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…CIT v. Microlabs Ltd (383 ITR 490) (Karnataka) [Page no. 456-460 of LPB-2] • CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) [Page no. 461-463 of LPB- 2] • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529)(Bom) [Page no. 464-476 of LPB- 2] • Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) [Page no.477-480 of LPB-2] • PCIT v. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd (130 taxmann.com 115) (Karnataka) [Page no. 481-484 of LPB-2] C. The Ld.AR then submitted that, it is a settled principle that, only such investments that yielded exempt income, should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1741/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…CIT v. Microlabs Ltd (383 ITR 490) (Karnataka) [Page no. 456-460 of LPB-2] • CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) [Page no. 461-463 of LPB- 2] • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529)(Bom) [Page no. 464-476 of LPB- 2] • Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) [Page no.477-480 of LPB-2] • PCIT v. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd (130 taxmann.com 115) (Karnataka) [Page no. 481-484 of LPB-2] C. The Ld.AR then submitted that, it is a settled principle that, only such investments that yielded exempt income, should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r…

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1705/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…CIT v. Microlabs Ltd (383 ITR 490) (Karnataka) [Page no. 456-460 of LPB-2] • CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) [Page no. 461-463 of LPB- 2] • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529)(Bom) [Page no. 464-476 of LPB- 2] • Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) [Page no.477-480 of LPB-2] • PCIT v. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd (130 taxmann.com 115) (Karnataka) [Page no. 481-484 of LPB-2] C. The Ld.AR then submitted that, it is a settled principle that, only such investments that yielded exempt income, should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r…

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1622/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…CIT v. Microlabs Ltd (383 ITR 490) (Karnataka) [Page no. 456-460 of LPB-2] • CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) [Page no. 461-463 of LPB- 2] • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529)(Bom) [Page no. 464-476 of LPB- 2] • Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) [Page no.477-480 of LPB-2] • PCIT v. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd (130 taxmann.com 115) (Karnataka) [Page no. 481-484 of LPB-2] C. The Ld.AR then submitted that, it is a settled principle that, only such investments that yielded exempt income, should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r…

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1600/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…CIT v. Microlabs Ltd (383 ITR 490) (Karnataka) [Page no. 456-460 of LPB-2] • CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) [Page no. 461-463 of LPB- 2] • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529)(Bom) [Page no. 464-476 of LPB- 2] • Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) [Page no.477-480 of LPB-2] • PCIT v. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd (130 taxmann.com 115) (Karnataka) [Page no. 481-484 of LPB-2] C. The Ld.AR then submitted that, it is a settled principle that, only such investments that yielded exempt income, should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r…

Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1599/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…CIT v. Microlabs Ltd (383 ITR 490) (Karnataka) [Page no. 456-460 of LPB-2] • CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) [Page no. 461-463 of LPB- 2] • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529)(Bom) [Page no. 464-476 of LPB- 2] • Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) [Page no.477-480 of LPB-2] • PCIT v. Subramanya Constructions & Development Co. Ltd (130 taxmann.com 115) (Karnataka) [Page no. 481-484 of LPB-2] C. The Ld.AR then submitted that, it is a settled principle that, only such investments that yielded exempt income, should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r…

Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & Research Centre (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3416/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3416/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S.Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & V. The Asst. Commissioner- Research Centre P. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.20, G.N.Chetty Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaccb 2146 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjunraj, CA for Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Chinthapalli Mehar Chand
Section 143(3)Section 40

…our attention to the share capital and reserve and surplus. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay), wherein in page no.16 it is 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 interest-free funds generated or available with the company, provided, the said funds AY 2007-08 M/s. Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & Research Center Pvt. Lt…