CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

Dy CIT, CC--1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Brothers Exports P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

…Rs. 190 crores and substantial interest free borrowings from the directors, which far exceeded the investment made by the assessee. Hence, no disallowance of interest should be made in the light of the decision of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340/178 Taxman 135 (Bom.) and CIT v. HDFC Bank [2014] 366 ITR 505/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 335 (Bom.). Regarding disallowance of indirect expenditure of Rs. 11,85,278/- worked in accordance with Rule 8D(2)(iii), he submitted that, firstly, the most of the investments were made by way of 'strategic investment' in subsidiaries and associate…

Dy CIT CC 7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Man Global Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

…rs M/s M Concepts Retail LLP; AY 15-16 & ors of interest expenditure is not justified. The AR relied on following decisions in defense of his arguments: a)PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd.[2018] 93 taxmann.com 24 (SC) b) CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340): c) CIT V/s Suzlon Energy Limited. 215 Taxman 272 (2013) d) HDFC Bank Ltd Vs. DCIT – 2(3), Mumbai & Others, [2016] 383 ITR 529, 77. The ld Ar submitted that in view of facts of the assesse and judicial decisions as referred to above , for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A, only net interest expenditure if any is required to be considered. The…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

…earing funds.” 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the I T Rules by merely relying on the decisions in the case of Reliance Utilities Ltd. vs. CIT [313 ITR 340 (Bom)], ignoring the facts stated in the assessment order.” 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation in respect of unrealized Foreign Exchange Loss of earlier years, ignoring that as the forex loss was unrealized the upward adjustment made by the assessee company to the blo…

Dy CIT, CC- 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developer Ltd.(Since Lodha Estae P. Ltd. Merged With Macrotech Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Deputy Commissioner Of Income- M/S Macrotech Developer Ltd. Tax Cc-7(3), Room No. 655, Vs. (Since Lodha Estate Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Macrotech Developer Ltd.), Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, 412, 17G, Vardhman Chamber, Mumbai – 400 020 Cawasji Patel Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Pan No. Aaacl1723E (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R Revenue By : Shri. Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y 2015-16. The Revenue Has Assailed The Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Effective Grounds Before Us : “1. Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,26,52,120/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The I.T Act. 2. Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,02,86,452/- Towards Sales Promotion Expense & Rs. 6,68,13,114/- On Account Of Advertisement Expenses Made By The Assessing Officer By Capitalizing The Same To The Work-In-Progress.” 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Company That Was Merged With M/S Lodha Developers Limited (Now Known As Macrotech Developers Limited) Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate. Return Of Income For A.Y 2015-16 Was E-Filed By The Assessee On 31.08.2015, Declaring A Loss

…luded that no part of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure was liable to be disallowed. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove had relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities, 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT-2, Mumbai Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Accordingly, the CIT(A) backed by his aforesaid deliberations directed the A.O to vacate the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 5,26,52,120/- made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Insofar the disallowance by the A.O of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of Sales promotion expenses…

Shivnarayan Nemani Shares & Stock Brokers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

…ments, therefore, there should not be interest disallowance in accordance with law and in support of these contentions the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 and Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (92 ITD 119) . However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. The copy of balance-sheet dated 31.03.2008 is on the file which lies at page no. 46 of the paper book. The balance-sheet speaks that the assessee was having its…