How many judgments cite CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.?

2,118 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 36(1)(iii), Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 8D, Section 10(34).

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 14A Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 8D Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

interest free advances disallowance of interest expenditure section 36(1)(iii)disallowance under section 14a commercial expediency disallowance u/s 14a section 14a book profits section 115j section 36(1)section 36 section 115jb

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

Gail (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 859/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 14A

…erest free funds are available and even if there are borrowed funds, the presumption would be that the investment have been made out of own funds. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utility and Power 313 ITR 340. However, we are of the view that certain administrative expenses has to be disallowed for earning this exempt income. In our considered opinion, the disallowance of Rs. 5 lacs should meet the end of justice. We accordingly, direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 5 lacs. Ground no. 9 is accordingly partly allowed. 9. Ground no. 10 and…

Gail (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 858/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 14A

Mr. Rajan Mahajan Dgm (F&A) vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 301/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 14A

Pck Metals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2226/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 2226/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2009-10) M/S. Pck Metals Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.1, Kushal Bhavan65, 5Th Kumbharwada, Mumbai – 400 004. Pan: Aadcp88653Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.Sreekar

Section 143(3)Section 69

…iate to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. While deciding this issue, the Assessing Officer shall also consider the applicability of decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility Power Ltd. reported as 313 ITR 340(Bom). 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in open Court on Thursday the 12th day of November, 2020. (N.K.PRADHAN) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/ Mumbai, "दनांक/Dated 12 /11/2020 Vm, Sr. PS (O/S) 5 ""त"ल"प अ"े"षतCopy of the Order…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-14 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6486/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Godrej Properties Income Tax, Circle-14(1)(2) Limited Mumbai Ground Floor Room No.475, 4Th Floor Phirojshanagar, Aayakar Bhavan Eastern Express Highway, M.K.Road, Vikhroli East Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3995M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Godrej Properties Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax, Circle-14(1)(1) Esplande House Mumbai 2Nd Floor Room No.404, 4Th Floor 29, Hazarimal Somani Aayakar Bhavan Marg, Fort, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3995M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri V. Vinodkumar Assessee By Shri Farooq V. Irani Date Of Hearing 29/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 M/S. Godrej Properties Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he year were Rs.102,38,93,978/- and 170,03,18,306/- respectively. This shows that the appellant's own interest free funds are in excess of the total investments made. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), held that if there are funds available, both, interest-free and overdraft and/or loans taken, then a presumption can be drawn that investments would be out of interest- free funds. This ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been further reaffirmed in the cases of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd, [2014] (49 taxmann.com 335) (Bom.) and…

DCIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I), Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…1 ITA No. 2149/Kol/2019 & C.O. No. 22/Kol/2020 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. A.Y. 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी पी. एम.जगताप,उपा"य" एवं "ी ए.ट". वक!,"या"यक सद$य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Circle-2, LTU, Kolkata Vs. M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. (PAN: AABCC 1682 J) Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 22/Kol/2020 In ITA No.2149/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, LTU, Kolkata (PAN: AABCC 1682 J) Cross Objec…

M/S. Alphagrep Securities Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1700/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.C.Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…8D(2)(ii) of the I.T.Rules. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court while laying down the above 4 M/s.Alphagrep Securities Pvt.Ltd. ratio, had relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, viz., (i) CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and (ii) CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited [(2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.)]. The ratio of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, cited supra, squarely applies to the facts of this case. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s. 14A of the I.T.Act r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T.Rules amounting to Rs.66,813. It i…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit CIT, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 40A(9)Section 42Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 3076/Mum/2012 2000-01 M/s Larsen ACIT, &Tourbro Ltd., Range 2(2) Taxation Rm No. 577, 5th Department, L&T Floor, House, N.M. Marg, AayakarBhgavan, Bal; lard estate MK Marg, Mumbai. 2 3573/Mum/2012 2000-01 M/s Larsen ACIT, &Tourbro Ltd., Range 2(2) Taxation Rm No. 577, 5th Department, L&T Floor, House, N.M. Marg, AayakarBhgavan, Bal; lard estate MK Marg, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACL0104P अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant…

M/S. Alp Consulting Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1738/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. R. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 36(1)(iii)

…is clear from the said statement that the availability of profit, share capital and reserves & surplus was much more than investments made by the assessee which could yield tax free income. 41. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) has held 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 and no disallowance u/s. 14A towards any interest expenditure can be made. This view was again confirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., ITA No.330 of…

Laxmi Diamond Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 2350/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2350/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Laxmi Diamond Private Limited Dcit-5(2) बिाम/ Ew-2200, Bharat Diamond Bourse 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Bandra Kurla Complex M.K.Marg Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcl-1815-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR

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

…the Tribunal, on identical set of facts, deleted the similar additions in AY 2009-10 vide ITA No.1106/Mum/2016 order dated 22/11/2019 by relying upon the binding decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Utility & Power Ltd. (2009 313 ITR 340) as well as in CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014 366 ITR 505). We find the factual matrix to be similar in this year. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned interest disallowance is not sustainable in law. By deleting the same, we allow the appeal. 8. The appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced on 22nd October, 2020. (Amar…

Shree Naman Securities Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4789/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am M/S. Shree Naman Securities Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(4) & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 415, Parekh Market, 39, J.S.S.Road Opera House Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1917G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mahesh O Rajora Revenue By Shri V. Vinod Kumar Date Of Hearing 28/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2020

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ment of the ld. AR 3 M/s. Shree Naman Securities Finance P. Ltd., and by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., vs. CIT in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom), we direct the ld. AO to delete the disallowance made on account of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules in view of availability of own funds. Since, the entire interest disallowance is directed to be deleted under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the alternative argument made by the ld. AR on without prejudice basis that only…

DCIT-8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 976/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Mr. H.N. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…nces given in form of share application money/loans, the appellant is still having interest free funds amounting to Rs.2149,25,11,878/- with it. Therefore, in view of decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and HDFC Bank Ltd. in appeal no. 330 of 2012 vide order dated 23.07.2014, there is no case for disallowance of any interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. It will not be out of place mention that similar interest disallowance made by the AO in A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 has been deleted by the ITAT vide its decisions in ITA No. 1655/Mum/2013 and…

Mehta Equities Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -4 (2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5850/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…o be not justified and is deleted. Reliance is place on the following decisions- (i) CIT v HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) (ii) CIT v Reliance Industries Ltd (Civil appeal No. 10 of 2019)(SC) (iii) CIT v Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) The AO has computed disallowance of expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 236,733 @ 0.5% of the average value of investment. The appellant has submitted that major expenses have been incurred under the head employee expenses and other expenses which have been incurred for the purpose of appellant's business of share broking and deposito…

Turakhia Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT. Circle 4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1852/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…in favour of assessee that the advances were made from interest-free funds available with the assessee. On this issue, we find guidance from the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is also in parity with the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. (judgement dated 05/12/2011 in Tax Appeal No.829 of 2007). In view of the huge funds available with the assessee without any interest liability, we find that the issue is squarely covered by…

Sky Appliances Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, whereas, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4511/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 115JSection 14A

…culation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. For AY 2009-10, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.3,52,29,192/- made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom). However, he confirmed the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.29,78,311/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO in the calculation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. For AY 2010-11, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,49,77,348/- made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by following the decision…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Sky Appliances Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, whereas, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 115JSection 14A

Kanchan Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1854/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2013-14 Kanchan Pharma Pvt. Ltd. The ACIT, Basement Harikrupa Circle-2(1)(2), Shopping Centre, Nr. Vs Ahmedabad Deepali Cinema, (Respondent) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. PAN No. AABCK6444J (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri P.B. Parmar, A.Rs. Date of hearing : 09-09-2020 Date of pronouncement : 07-10-2020 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, a…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1380/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36Section 43(5)(d)Section 80I

…r relied up on several judicial precedents as under : i. CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC) ii. CIT Vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd. 51 DTR 98 (Del.) iii. CIT Vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del.) iv. CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 23. He submitted that in light of factual and legal position clarified above, there is no case of any disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax The Act, 1961. 24. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported order of learned assessing officer and learned CIT – A. He submitted that when assessee has borrowed interest…

Poona Constructtion Machinery & Products Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 493/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 36(1)(iii)

…its share capital and Reserves and Surplus stood at Rs.5,71,49,014/- and to that extent no disallowance of interest should be made, which contention came to be jettisoned. 6. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), has held that where an assessee possessed sufficient interest free funds of its own which were generated in the course of relevant financial year, apart from substantial shareholders’ funds, presumption stands established 4 Poona Construction Machinery and Products Pvt. Ltd., that the investments in sister concerns were made by the asses…

Associated Broadcasting Company Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 825/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhaya Rout, DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…s own funds being the share capital and reserves were much more than the investments made by the assessee in its subsidiaries. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., (2009) [178 135/313 ITR 340] (Bombay HC), wherein it was held that – “if the funds are available, both interest free and/or loans taken, just presumption would arise that investments would be out of interest free funds generated or available with company, provided such funds are sufficient to meet the investments”. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of…