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.

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

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1082/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra. CIT DR

Section 14A

…for the purpose of computing interest disallowance. Ld. CIT (A) has presumed proportion of utilisation of funds in absence of the nexus holding that assesse has used mixed funds. Honourable Bombay High court in case of CIT V Reliance Utilities & Power limited 313 ITR 340 has held that "The principle therefore would be 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 the interest-free fund generated or available with the ITA No. 1082 & 1083/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 11 company, if the interest-free funds were sufficien…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Retail Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5959/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Leena Shrivastava

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ents made the presumption is that the investments were made out of such owned / interest free funds and not borrowed funds. In such a situation, no disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D (2) (ii) could be made. Ref: CIT v/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. - [(2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom)] and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd. -[(2014) 366 ITR 0505 (Bom)] 3. Almost entire investments made by the Assessee are in subsidiary companies / group concerns with which the assessee had entered into joint venture / strategic alliance for strategic business purposes in order to promote the Assessee's business and also help the Assessee gain certa…

S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P.Tld, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is also partly allowed

ITA 79/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumars. Vinodkumar Diamonds, Dcit – 5(3), बनाम/ Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Vs. Off No. Bw 3010, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics514N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, SeniorFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, Sr-DR

Section 14A

…rore. Thus, the assessee’s own funds are in far excess than the investment. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that when interest free funds are in far excess and no disallowance in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in Reliance Utility and Power Ltd,, 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom). On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the Ld. AR submits that no interest disallowance as provided u/s Rule 8(D)(ii) is warranted against the assessee. Even no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is warranted. 29. In alternative submission (in written synopsis) the Ld. AR for assessee submit…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6766/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Ms. Soumya Kulkarni/Mr. Arvind V. Sonde, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…s the investments are at Rs.72,58.77 Lacs. In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : “15. It is clear that for the first time in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) that this Court took a view that the presumption which has been laid down in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) with regard to investment in tax free securities coming Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. 5 out of assessee's own funds in case the…

Manoj Kamleshkumar Sukhlani, (Prop. M/S. Manoj Automotive), Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 834/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, with Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 36

…lant has not been able to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are illegal or perverse warranting interference by this Court. 5.1 We also find guidance and support from Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 wherein it was held as under:- “The principle therefore would be 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 the interest-free fund generated or available with the company, if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investments.…

ACIT 29(1), Mumbai vs. Anand M Shetty, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 769/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 769/Mum/2015 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Anand M. Shetty Tax, Central Circle 29(1), Room 1801, Odyssey1, Hiranandani बिाम/ No.108, 1St Floor, C-10. Gardens, Powai, Pratyankshakar Bhavan, B.K.C, Mumbai-400 076 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaops6358R अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Michael Jerald, Sr. Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Chetan Karia, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Michael Jerald, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Karia, AR

Section 143(3)

…ee has interest free funds available with it at ₹7,33,65,8320/-, which is much more than the investment. According to CIT(A), the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay). Hence, CIT(A) restricted the disallowance at ₹11,07,740/-. Aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before Tribunal. 8. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the Revenue has not disputed the investment and availability of interest free funds and also not contested that interest…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1950/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…of the investments, the presumption that arises is that interest free funds have been invested in investments which do not yield taxable income as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) order dated 09.01.2009. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1212, 1410 & 1950/Kol/2018 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/s. SPML Infra Limited. Thus, we uphold the deletion of the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. 3. Coming to disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the ld CIT(A) has d…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 115JSection 13Section 14ASection 251Section 36Section 80

…ition made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rule’ for short). The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) order dated 09.01.2009 and as the assessee had interest free funds in excess of investments, the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rule by the AO was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, we find no infirmity in this decision of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, ground no. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. Ground no. 2 is on…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1410/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 14ASection 250Section 80

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1212/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 14ASection 250Section 80

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Realtech Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Realtech Infrastructure Income Tax Ltd., D-22, 2Nd Floor Central Circle-15 Room No.354 Defence Colony 3Rd Floor, Jhandewalan New Delhi – 110 024 Extension, New Delhi- 110055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcr4608R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Realtech Infrastructure Income Tax Ltd., D-22, 2nd Floor Central Circle-15 Room No.354 Defence Colony 3rd Floor, Jhandewalan New Delhi – 110 024 Extension, New Delhi- 110055 PAN/GIR No. AADCR4608R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Amit Kumar Jain Assessee by Shri R.S. Ahuja Date of Hearing 23/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement 01/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.6692/Del/2013 for A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commi…

M/S. United Spirits Limted, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-7, Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C. Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 250

…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 Page 5 of 7 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., I…

M/S. Goyal Ispat Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1755/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, D.R

Section 10Section 14A

…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…

Jewel Consumer Care Pvt. Limited, Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2070/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2070/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.R

Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2070/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Jewel Consumer Care बनाम/ ACIT Pvt. Limited Circle -1(1)(2), Baroda Vs. “Subhaag”, B-15/16, Ramin Park, Old Padra Road, Vadodara 390 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACB8634Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri…

Amrish Jayantilal Kakkad, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

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

ITA 1671/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 14A

…ld. Counsel mentioned that the assessee has excess funds and, in that case, the applicability of the finding of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Court’s judgments in the case of (i) CIT vs. HDFC Bank, 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and (ii) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) are applicable in the present case. In this regard, ld. Counsel mentioned that for want of clarity of availability of excess funds, the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that the addition is not to be made in case of existence of excess funds. We agree with the same and accordingly, this part of t…

M/S. R.B. Polymers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 456/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.456/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Rb Polymers Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata 25, R.N. Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Suite-F, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr3117R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata Dated 20.02.2018 Passed In Case No.1220/Cit(A)-2/14-15 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First & Former Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Invoking Section 14A R.W.R 8D(2)(Ii) Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest Amounting To Rs.75614/- Pertaining To Its Exempt Income. Suffice To Say, We Notice At The Outset That The Assessee’S Investments As On 31.03.2009 & 31.03.2010 Read Figures Of Rs.1,71,25,754/- & 1,93,49,912/- (Difference Of Rs.22,24,158/-) As Against Its Non-Interest Bearing Funds In The Nature Of Share Capital Along With Reserves & Surplus Of

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36(2)(i)Section 37

…s us to the irresistible conclusion that the assessee’s non-interest funds turn out to be much more than corresponding investments. There is hardly any justification therefore to sustain the impugned disallowance going by CIT vs. Reliance Utility & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340(Bom), CIT vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del) and Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT 298 ITR 298(SC), CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and PCIT vs Rasoi Ltd. GA No. 633/2016(hon’ble jurisdictional high court). We therefore adopt the very analogy herein as well and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. 3. The asses…

DCIT - 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Mili Consultants and Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesse is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5032/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathadcit, Circle-4(3)(2) Vs. Mili Consultants & Room No.649, 6Th Floor Investments Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan 204, Shreepal Complex M.K.Road Suren Road Mumbai-400 020 Near Cine Magi Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm6095Q Appellant) .. Respondent) & Cross Objection No.206/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mili Consultants & Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(3)(2) Room No.649, 6Th Floor Investments Pvt.Ltd. 204, Shreepal Complex Aaykar Bhavan Suren Road M.K.Road Near Cine Magi Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm6095Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 14ASection 3Section 73

…lenged additions made by the ld. AO towards disallowances u/s 14A of the Act, in light of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of HDFC Bank Ld. Vs DCIT (supra) and CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and argued that in case own funds is more than the value of investments in shares, then no disallowances could be made towards interest expenditure. The assesee has also, challenged the findings of the Ld. AO in computing average value of investments by including shares held as stock in trade in light of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in…

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 293/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit – 9(3)(2), Mumbai, M/S Godfrey Phillips India Ltd 418, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Macropolo Building; Ground Floor Maharishi Karve Marg Next To Kala Chowky Post Office Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 033. Pan – Aabcg4768K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Vinod Kumar D.RFor Respondent: S/shri Manish V. Shah & Parveen Jain A.R‘s

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69B

…lue of work-in-progress whose closing balance for the year under consideration stood reflected at Rs. 137.40 crores, the CIT(A) drawing support from the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), therein concluded that it could safely DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/s Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. ITA No. 293/Mum/2018 – A.Y 2012-13 3 be presumed that the investment was made by the assessee out of its self-owned funds. In the backdrop of his aforesaid observations the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 94,80,60…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…nt 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. 24 IT(TP)A No.489/Bang/2017 . 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…

Essel Propack Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2068/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhessel Propack Limited, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Top Floor, Times Tower, Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Room No. 563, 5Th Floor, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaace 1568L Appellant Respondednt

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

…e has made total investment in foreign subsidiary of ₹ 489 crore and in Indian subsidiary of ₹ 78 crore only. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT versus Reliance Utility & Power Ltd (313 ITR 340 Bom), CIT 17 ITA 2068 /Mum/2016 Essel Propack Limited versus Reliance Industry Ltd (410 ITR 466 SC) and HDFC Bank Versus DCIT (383 ITR 529 Bom).s 18. On the other hand the learned DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 19. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and have gone through the orders of lower…