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.

Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and C

ITA 5615/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarshri Ram Lal Negi & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth and Shri Jayesh Desai, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunathan Swami, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Assessment Year: 2010-11 TATA CAPITAL LTD. ACIT-2(3), Mumbai One Forbes, Dr. B.V. R.NO.552, 5th Floor, Gandhi Marg, Fort, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Mumbai-400020. 400001. PAN: AADCP9147P (Assessee) (Revenue) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT-2(3), Mumbai One Forbes, Dr. B.V. Vs. Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400001. PAN: AADCP9147P (Revenue) (Assessee) & CO No.122/Mum/2015 (ITA No.2178/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2010-11 TATA CAPITAL LTD. DC…

Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and C

ITA 2223/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarshri Ram Lal Negi & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth and Shri Jayesh Desai, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunathan Swami, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Assessment Year: 2010-11 TATA CAPITAL LTD. ACIT-2(3), Mumbai One Forbes, Dr. B.V. R.NO.552, 5th Floor, Gandhi Marg, Fort, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Mumbai-400020. 400001. PAN: AADCP9147P (Assessee) (Revenue) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT-2(3), Mumbai One Forbes, Dr. B.V. Vs. Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400001. PAN: AADCP9147P (Revenue) (Assessee) & CO No.122/Mum/2015 (ITA No.2178/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2010-11 TATA CAPITAL LTD. DC…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and C

ITA 2178/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarshri Ram Lal Negi & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth and Shri Jayesh Desai, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunathan Swami, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Assessment Year: 2010-11 TATA CAPITAL LTD. ACIT-2(3), Mumbai One Forbes, Dr. B.V. R.NO.552, 5th Floor, Gandhi Marg, Fort, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Mumbai-400020. 400001. PAN: AADCP9147P (Assessee) (Revenue) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT-2(3), Mumbai One Forbes, Dr. B.V. Vs. Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400001. PAN: AADCP9147P (Revenue) (Assessee) & CO No.122/Mum/2015 (ITA No.2178/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2010-11 TATA CAPITAL LTD. DC…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 473/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…respectively. The CIT(A) has followed hon'ble’s Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities ITA Nos.309-310, 312/K/17 & 470-473/K/17 A.Ys. 03-04 to 06-07 & 11-12 M/s Saregama India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kol Page 25 and Power Ltd. in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that the necessary presumption in such an instance is of utilization of interest free funds only. We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 472/Kol/2017 is dismissed. Assessment Year 2006-07:- 16. This fourth assessment year 2006-07 involves Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.473/Kol/2017. Its first…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 472/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…respectively. The CIT(A) has followed hon'ble’s Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities ITA Nos.309-310, 312/K/17 & 470-473/K/17 A.Ys. 03-04 to 06-07 & 11-12 M/s Saregama India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kol Page 25 and Power Ltd. in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that the necessary presumption in such an instance is of utilization of interest free funds only. We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 472/Kol/2017 is dismissed. Assessment Year 2006-07:- 16. This fourth assessment year 2006-07 involves Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.473/Kol/2017. Its first…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 471/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…respectively. The CIT(A) has followed hon'ble’s Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities ITA Nos.309-310, 312/K/17 & 470-473/K/17 A.Ys. 03-04 to 06-07 & 11-12 M/s Saregama India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kol Page 25 and Power Ltd. in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that the necessary presumption in such an instance is of utilization of interest free funds only. We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 472/Kol/2017 is dismissed. Assessment Year 2006-07:- 16. This fourth assessment year 2006-07 involves Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.473/Kol/2017. Its first…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 470/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…respectively. The CIT(A) has followed hon'ble’s Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities ITA Nos.309-310, 312/K/17 & 470-473/K/17 A.Ys. 03-04 to 06-07 & 11-12 M/s Saregama India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kol Page 25 and Power Ltd. in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that the necessary presumption in such an instance is of utilization of interest free funds only. We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 472/Kol/2017 is dismissed. Assessment Year 2006-07:- 16. This fourth assessment year 2006-07 involves Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.473/Kol/2017. Its first…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 312/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…respectively. The CIT(A) has followed hon'ble’s Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities ITA Nos.309-310, 312/K/17 & 470-473/K/17 A.Ys. 03-04 to 06-07 & 11-12 M/s Saregama India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kol Page 25 and Power Ltd. in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that the necessary presumption in such an instance is of utilization of interest free funds only. We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 472/Kol/2017 is dismissed. Assessment Year 2006-07:- 16. This fourth assessment year 2006-07 involves Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.473/Kol/2017. Its first…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 310/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…respectively. The CIT(A) has followed hon'ble’s Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities ITA Nos.309-310, 312/K/17 & 470-473/K/17 A.Ys. 03-04 to 06-07 & 11-12 M/s Saregama India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kol Page 25 and Power Ltd. in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that the necessary presumption in such an instance is of utilization of interest free funds only. We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 472/Kol/2017 is dismissed. Assessment Year 2006-07:- 16. This fourth assessment year 2006-07 involves Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.473/Kol/2017. Its first…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 309/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…respectively. The CIT(A) has followed hon'ble’s Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities ITA Nos.309-310, 312/K/17 & 470-473/K/17 A.Ys. 03-04 to 06-07 & 11-12 M/s Saregama India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kol Page 25 and Power Ltd. in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that the necessary presumption in such an instance is of utilization of interest free funds only. We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 472/Kol/2017 is dismissed. Assessment Year 2006-07:- 16. This fourth assessment year 2006-07 involves Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.473/Kol/2017. Its first…

M/S. Harita Seating Systems Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 2745/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2745/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Harita Seating Systems Limited, No. 29, Jayalakshmi Income Tax, Estates, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaach2492N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2020

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234A

…nd was incurred in connection with the operating revenue which had been offered to tax, no disallowance is required to be made under section 14A of the Act [CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 418(Guj), :- 4 -: ITA No.2745/Chny/19 etc.]. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the financial status of the assessee having sufficient own funds to make investments in subsidiary. We have also perused the balance sheet filed by the assessee and fin…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 3(4), Central Range-3, Mumbai vs. Sunteck Realty Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6578/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…surplus of Rs.494.38 crores. On the other hand, the investments made by the assessee which resulted in exempt income is of Rs.247.6 crores only. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom); CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (ITA No. 330 of 2012) deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,35,34,248/- made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. M/s Sunteck Realty Ltd 3.1 In respect of disallowance of Rs.41,18,434/- made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld. CIT(A) held that strategic investments to the extent of average value of Rs.30,44,4…

Sunteck Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6062/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…surplus of Rs.494.38 crores. On the other hand, the investments made by the assessee which resulted in exempt income is of Rs.247.6 crores only. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom); CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (ITA No. 330 of 2012) deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,35,34,248/- made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. M/s Sunteck Realty Ltd 3.1 In respect of disallowance of Rs.41,18,434/- made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld. CIT(A) held that strategic investments to the extent of average value of Rs.30,44,4…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…eferred to the pages of the balance sheet as on 31/03/2006 and 31/03/2007 to demonstrate that investment was made out of own funds. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs UTI Bank Ltd reported in 32 taxmann.com 370 to support the contention that where the ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 appellant had sufficient funds/deposits for advancing interest free loans or making investment in shares etc. and there is nothing on record to show that borrowe…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…eferred to the pages of the balance sheet as on 31/03/2006 and 31/03/2007 to demonstrate that investment was made out of own funds. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs UTI Bank Ltd reported in 32 taxmann.com 370 to support the contention that where the ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 appellant had sufficient funds/deposits for advancing interest free loans or making investment in shares etc. and there is nothing on record to show that borrowe…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…eferred to the pages of the balance sheet as on 31/03/2006 and 31/03/2007 to demonstrate that investment was made out of own funds. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs UTI Bank Ltd reported in 32 taxmann.com 370 to support the contention that where the ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 appellant had sufficient funds/deposits for advancing interest free loans or making investment in shares etc. and there is nothing on record to show that borrowe…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…eferred to the pages of the balance sheet as on 31/03/2006 and 31/03/2007 to demonstrate that investment was made out of own funds. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs UTI Bank Ltd reported in 32 taxmann.com 370 to support the contention that where the ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 appellant had sufficient funds/deposits for advancing interest free loans or making investment in shares etc. and there is nothing on record to show that borrowe…

M.G. Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7232/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7232 & 7233/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M.G. Consulting Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT-10(2)(2) 4, Chandan Niwas (old) Room No.209 1st Floor Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mathurdas Visanji Road Mumbai-400 020 Behind Andheri Gymkhana Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 069 PAN/GIR No.AAACN3292Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil Sathe, AR Revenue by Shri. Kailash Mangal, DR Date of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement 22/01/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश P…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajesh Malleables Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 802/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…tances, a presumption can be drawn that the loans has been provided out of the owned funds of the assessee. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble 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.…

Hira T. Jhamtani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(1), Mumbai

ITA 7388/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 7388/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hira T. Jhamtani……...........…...…………..…...............................................................................Appellant 19, Tulips Union Part, 4Th Floor, Pali Hill Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. [Pan: Adapj 8790 R] Vs. Acit 18(1), Mumbai……………….......…..…………………....…................................................Respondent Mumbai. Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2020 Order

Section 14ASection 37

…. CIT(A). In support of its proposition that the assessee has sufficient interest free funds of its own and no disallowance is required the assessee placed reliance upon Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505. However the Ld. CIT(A) went on to distinguish these directly applicable Jurisdictional High Court decision by noting that in these I.T.A. No. 7300/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hira T. Jhamtani decisions Hon'ble High Court was not informed about the decision…