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 367,518 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.

The Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Mahaveer Calyx

ITA/825/2017HC Karnataka05 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 80I

…alue of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the Previous Year. 11. The 'CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD.', 313 ITR 340 (Bom), the Bombay High Court has held that where interest free funds exceed the value of investments, it can safely be inferred that investments have been made out of interest free funds and no disallowance under Section 14A towards any interest expenditure can be made. Similar view was taken in CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD., 366 ITR 505 (Bom)…

ACIT, Central Circle, Bikaner vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

Section 40

…5 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta.  CIT Vs HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 0505 (Bom)(HC)  CIT Vs UTI Bank Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman 8 (Guj) (HC) (Magz.)  CIT Vs Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 630 (Guj)(HC)  CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom(HC). 6.2 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 1,71,693/- made by the A.O. is deleted. The appellant gets relief in Ground No. 3.” From perusal of the record, we noticed that the assessee was having opening capital of Rs.2,07,85,100/- and closing capital of Rs.3,39,96,200/- which is much…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sabarkantha Circle, Himatnagar vs. The Sabarkantha District Co.-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Himatnagar

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2401/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

…the said deposits were made out of own non interest bearing funds. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Mungal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 and decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340. Keeping these facts and the case laws in view, Ld. CIT(A) held that it was not required to look into the source of the funds. The plain language of section did not speak of any such adjustment. The only requirement was that income should be received from investment in co-operative societies and co-operative banks. Since in the present case, it w…

ACIT - Circle- 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Supergems (India) Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5611/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle – 5(3)(2), M/S. Supergems (India) Room No.573, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Fc/5041/42/43, M.K. Road, Vs. Bharat Diamond Course, Mumbai - 400020 G-Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaacf4627R (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.210/M/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5611/M/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle – 5(3)(2), M/S. Supergems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No.573, 5Th Floor, Fc/5041/42/43, Aayakar Bhavan, Bharat Diamond Course, Vs. M.K. Road, G-Block, Bkc Mumbai - 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaacf4627R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shri Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT Circle – 5(3)(2), M/s. Supergems (India) Room No.573, 5th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, FC/5041/42/43, M.K. Road, Vs. Bharat Diamond Course, Mumbai - 400020 G-Block, BKC Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 PAN: AAACF4627R (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.210/M/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.5611/M/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT Circle – 5(3)(2), M/s. Supergems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No.573, 5th Floor, FC/5041/42/43, Aayakar Bhavan, Bharat D…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…essee is in appeal. 65. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to Page Nos. 25, 122 to 132 of paper book and relying on the judgements in the case of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [379 ITR 347 (SC)], CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340 (Bombay)] and CIT v. HDFC Bank 56 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders Ltd. [366 ITR 505 (Bombay)] contended that it had sufficient owned funds in order to advance the same to the sister concerns and as such no disallowance could be made u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act on the ground of diversion of borrowed funds. He further…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…essee is in appeal. 65. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to Page Nos. 25, 122 to 132 of paper book and relying on the judgements in the case of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [379 ITR 347 (SC)], CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340 (Bombay)] and CIT v. HDFC Bank 56 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders Ltd. [366 ITR 505 (Bombay)] contended that it had sufficient owned funds in order to advance the same to the sister concerns and as such no disallowance could be made u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act on the ground of diversion of borrowed funds. He further…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1766/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…- 363 ITR 474 (Guj.) > CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. - 354 ITR 630 (Guj) > CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. - 352 ITR 583 (Guj) > CIT vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I). Ltd. - (2014) 41 taxmann.com 540 (Guj) > CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. - 313 ITR 340 (Bom) > Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT - 298 ITR 298 (SC) The ld. counsel also submitted that assessee was having substantial interest free funds than the investment. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has supported the order of lower authorities and contended that Assessing Officer has made dissatisfaction on the action of…

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1757/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…- 363 ITR 474 (Guj.) > CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. - 354 ITR 630 (Guj) > CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. - 352 ITR 583 (Guj) > CIT vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I). Ltd. - (2014) 41 taxmann.com 540 (Guj) > CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. - 313 ITR 340 (Bom) > Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT - 298 ITR 298 (SC) The ld. counsel also submitted that assessee was having substantial interest free funds than the investment. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has supported the order of lower authorities and contended that Assessing Officer has made dissatisfaction on the action of…

Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 804/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 804 & 805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…of the year as well as at the close of the year under consideration are enough to cover the investments in question and, therefore, following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340(Bom), it gives rise to a presumption that such investments have come out of interest free-funds. The said proposition is equally applicable in the context of section 14A of the Act, as held by Hon 'ble Bombay High Court in the case in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom) and in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bor…

Nirpan Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Nirpan Securities Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 301-308, Bhagwati House Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai Veera Desai Road Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 058 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1329A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ence, there cannot be any disallowance of interest under second limb of 8D(2) of the Rules in support of which the assessee placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in 366 ITR 505. We find that the ld. CIT(A) appreciating the said contention of the assessee directed the ld. AO to delete the disallowance of interest of Rs.45,38,317/- made under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. 3 M/s. Nirpan Securities Pvt. Ltd., 3.3. With regard to disallowance of administrative expenses…

Podar Advisory and Consulting Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7209/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7209/मुं/2018 ("न.व.2015-16) Podar Advisory & Consulting Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Podar Chambers, 109, Sa Brelvi Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aaacp3336K बनाम/ Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of the assessee were sufficient to cover the investment made. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank ltd. vs. DCIT, 366 ITR 505 and the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs.Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340(Bom). The CIT(A) remain unimpressed with the contentions raised by the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Against the findings of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, representing the Department vehemently defended the findings of CIT(A) and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. 5. The submis…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2324/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…ce of interest amounting to Rs.1,77,00,000 and addition of the same to the work in progress is directed to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs.HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC), ITAT Mumbai in the case of Shrenuj & Co. Ltd A.Y. 2006-07 (In ITA No.8189/Mum/2010 and A.Y. 2007-08 (in ITA No.7948/Mum/2011) and ITAT, Delhi in the case of La…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2322/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…ce of interest amounting to Rs.1,77,00,000 and addition of the same to the work in progress is directed to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs.HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC), ITAT Mumbai in the case of Shrenuj & Co. Ltd A.Y. 2006-07 (In ITA No.8189/Mum/2010 and A.Y. 2007-08 (in ITA No.7948/Mum/2011) and ITAT, Delhi in the case of La…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2325/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…ce of interest amounting to Rs.1,77,00,000 and addition of the same to the work in progress is directed to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs.HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC), ITAT Mumbai in the case of Shrenuj & Co. Ltd A.Y. 2006-07 (In ITA No.8189/Mum/2010 and A.Y. 2007-08 (in ITA No.7948/Mum/2011) and ITAT, Delhi in the case of La…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2323/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…ce of interest amounting to Rs.1,77,00,000 and addition of the same to the work in progress is directed to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs.HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC), ITAT Mumbai in the case of Shrenuj & Co. Ltd A.Y. 2006-07 (In ITA No.8189/Mum/2010 and A.Y. 2007-08 (in ITA No.7948/Mum/2011) and ITAT, Delhi in the case of La…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2321/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…ce of interest amounting to Rs.1,77,00,000 and addition of the same to the work in progress is directed to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs.HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC), ITAT Mumbai in the case of Shrenuj & Co. Ltd A.Y. 2006-07 (In ITA No.8189/Mum/2010 and A.Y. 2007-08 (in ITA No.7948/Mum/2011) and ITAT, Delhi in the case of La…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2320/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…ce of interest amounting to Rs.1,77,00,000 and addition of the same to the work in progress is directed to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs.HDFC Bank Ltd (IT Appeal No.330 of 2012) and also Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Another (2008) 298 ITR 298(SC), ITAT Mumbai in the case of Shrenuj & Co. Ltd A.Y. 2006-07 (In ITA No.8189/Mum/2010 and A.Y. 2007-08 (in ITA No.7948/Mum/2011) and ITAT, Delhi in the case of La…

Hbn Netowrk P.Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in ground No. 1, 2 is allowed

ITA 3012/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3012/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ee deals in wholesale business as well as retail and it supplies directly to the customers through e-portal. On merits, relied on the following case laws of the jurisdictional High Court of Mumbai in the cases of PCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd. (2020) 423 ITR 220 (Bom) (HC) and PCIT v. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd (2020) 422 ITR 520 (Bom) (HC). 12. On the other hand, learned DR submitted that the reopening of the assessment was made based on the information from external agencies therefore the reopening of the assessment 13 I.T.A. No. 3012/Mum/2017 HBN Networks Pvt. Ltd. is proper and with regard to mer…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Assetz Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 983/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, D.R
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

…had erred in dismissing the Appeal of the Revenue on this ground. We do not find that question (A) gives rise to any substantial question of law and is therefore rejected.” ITA No.563&983/Bang/2019 Assetz Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 5 of 11 (** 313 ITR 340) It may be noticed that the above said decision was made in the context of the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. However, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has followed the decision rendered by it in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd, wherein the question was disallowance made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It may also be noticed that the…

M/S. Mittal Clothing Company, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2308/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014 – 15 Mittal Clothing Company, The Asst. Commissioner of 102, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, Income Tax, 2nd Stage, Industrial Suburb, Circle-6(2)(1), Yeshwanthpur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 022. PAN – AABFM 6725 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 26-11-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27-11-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has be…