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.

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 340)

DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathapiramal Enterprise Limited Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(3) (Formerly Known As Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35

…aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of (i) HDFC Bank Ltd Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom); (ii) CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom); and (iii) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). In fact, a similar issue had came up before the Tribunal in the assesses own case for the immediately preceding year i.e A.Y 2008-09 viz. M/s Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (ITA No. 5471/Mum/2017, dated 30.07.2018). The Tribunal after deliberating on the issue under consideration, had directed the A.O to verify the assesses claim o…

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5601/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…h were sufficient to made its investments, it would be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with the assessee. We rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utility and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) (HC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 (SC). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification to sustain the addition. We, accordingly,…

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5408/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…h were sufficient to made its investments, it would be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with the assessee. We rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utility and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) (HC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 (SC). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification to sustain the addition. We, accordingly,…

M/S. Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3080/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…h were sufficient to made its investments, it would be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with the assessee. We rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utility and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) (HC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 (SC). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification to sustain the addition. We, accordingly,…

M/S Pradeep Trading Company, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 875/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Section 234BSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Pradeep Trading Company…………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 2, Canal West Road Kolkata West Bengal – 700 067 [PAN : AAGFP 9955 R] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-44(2), Kolkata……………...................................….………....…....Respondent Appearances by: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT Sr. D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearin…

Sunil Devakinandan Seksaria, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 31(3)(Earlier ACIT-Circle-2, Thane), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 5375/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sunil Devakinandan The Asstt. Commissioner Of Seksaria, Income Tax – 31 (3), Flat No. 1602, Anmol Prestige Bkc, Mumbai – 400051(Earlier Building, Near Hudai Showroom, Vs. Acit, Circle 2, Thane) S.V. Road, Motilal Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400104 Pan: Accps2383Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/01/2020

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)

…have set aside the findings of the AO. The Ld. counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries (civil appeal No 19 of 2019), judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bombay), and decisions of the Mumbai Tribunal, submitted that the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are contrary to the ratio laid down in aforesaid cases. The Ld. counsel further contended that the assessee had raised various unsecured loans from his family members and relatives. Part of these loans were interest free and part of the loans were inter…

M/S Hangya Ice Cream Pvt Ltd, Hubbali vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1), Hubbali

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

ITA 1447/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Hangyo Ice Creams (P) Ltd. No.38, Ii Floor, Eureka Junction, T B Road, Hubballi-580 029 ….Appellant Pan Aahcs 6664E Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Hubballi. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Hangyo Ice Creams (P) Ltd. No.38, II Floor, Eureka Junction, T B Road, Hubballi-580 029 ….Appellant PAN AAHCS 6664E Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Hubballi. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2020 O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed an appeal against the ord…

M/S. Industrial Develop, Ment Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 3371/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 1998-1999

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

Section 143(3)

…s in shares and securities is made out of own and interest free funds available with the assessee. The case of assessee is squarely covered by the following decisions :- i) CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) ii) CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) Since the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we, therefore, are inclined to set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. Since we have allowed the relief to the assessee on the plea that own funds are more than amount of investments, ther…

Rubee Air Freight Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1822/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1822/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rubee Air Freight Limited Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata “Basu House”, 2Nd Floor, 3, Chowringhee Approach, Kolkata – 700072, W.B "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr4323D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K. M. Roy, Fca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 17, Kolkata Dated 14.06.2018 Passed In Case No.329/Cit(A)-17/Kol/17-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40Section 43B

…amounting to Rs.62,31,200/- and Rs.76,79,071/-; respectively. The necessary presumption that arises in such an instance is that of utilisation of interest free funds only as per hon’ble Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340(Bom). Coupled with this, the assessee has also made interest free advances to its sister concern (supra). Hon’ble apex court’s judgment in S.A. Builders vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) holds that such interest free advances between group concerns carry the element of commercial expediency. We conclude in these facts and circumstances that both the l…

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 2003/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah & Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n funds are sufficient to invest in non-business activities, a presumption is drawn that the said investment is made out of own funds. To buttress this plea, we rely on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), wherein it was held as follows: “The assessee claimed deduction of interest on borrowed capital. The Assessing Officer recorded a finding that the sum of Rs.213 crores was invested out of its own funds and Rs. 147 crores was invested out of borrowed funds. Accordingly, he disallowed interest amounting to Rs.4.40 crores calculated at 12 per cent…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1821/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah & Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n funds are sufficient to invest in non-business activities, a presumption is drawn that the said investment is made out of own funds. To buttress this plea, we rely on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), wherein it was held as follows: “The assessee claimed deduction of interest on borrowed capital. The Assessing Officer recorded a finding that the sum of Rs.213 crores was invested out of its own funds and Rs. 147 crores was invested out of borrowed funds. Accordingly, he disallowed interest amounting to Rs.4.40 crores calculated at 12 per cent…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 606/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…terest free funds in the form of share capital and reserves as against the investments yielding exempt income. Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the HDFC Bank [ITA.No. 330 of 2012] and Reliance Utilities [313 ITR 340 (Bom)] held that no interest disallowance is warranted. He also observed that in assessee’s own case for the A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 the ratio of these decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Courts have been followed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessee’s favour. However, coming to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 605/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…terest free funds in the form of share capital and reserves as against the investments yielding exempt income. Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the HDFC Bank [ITA.No. 330 of 2012] and Reliance Utilities [313 ITR 340 (Bom)] held that no interest disallowance is warranted. He also observed that in assessee’s own case for the A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 the ratio of these decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Courts have been followed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessee’s favour. However, coming to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…terest free funds in the form of share capital and reserves as against the investments yielding exempt income. Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the HDFC Bank [ITA.No. 330 of 2012] and Reliance Utilities [313 ITR 340 (Bom)] held that no interest disallowance is warranted. He also observed that in assessee’s own case for the A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 the ratio of these decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Courts have been followed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessee’s favour. However, coming to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1476/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…terest free funds in the form of share capital and reserves as against the investments yielding exempt income. Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the HDFC Bank [ITA.No. 330 of 2012] and Reliance Utilities [313 ITR 340 (Bom)] held that no interest disallowance is warranted. He also observed that in assessee’s own case for the A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 the ratio of these decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Courts have been followed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessee’s favour. However, coming to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii…

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7092/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 10

…astructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., 2.1 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to recomputed the disallowance u/s 14A relying up on the judgment in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) which is related to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) without appreciating that the disallowance in the present case pertains to Section 14A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the capital expenditure on the computer software development expenses of Rs.49,02,820/- as revenue expendit…

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7091/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 10

…astructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., 2.1 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to recomputed the disallowance u/s 14A relying up on the judgment in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) which is related to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) without appreciating that the disallowance in the present case pertains to Section 14A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the capital expenditure on the computer software development expenses of Rs.49,02,820/- as revenue expendit…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6829/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 10

…astructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., 2.1 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to recomputed the disallowance u/s 14A relying up on the judgment in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) which is related to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) without appreciating that the disallowance in the present case pertains to Section 14A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the capital expenditure on the computer software development expenses of Rs.49,02,820/- as revenue expendit…

The Supreme Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4673/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 115JSection 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 43(6)Section 45Section 51Section 80

…e- to-one nexus between the available interest free funds the investment earning exempt income. In this regard, we note that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) had expounded that if interest free funds are sufficient to cover the impugned investment, no disallowance on 20 The Supreme Industries Ltd. ITA Nos. 4673 & 4754/Mum/2014 account of diversion of interest needs to be done and the assessee is not required to show any one-to-one nexus. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, th…

M/S Supreme Overseas Exports Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ward-12(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee’s stands partly allowed

ITA 1985/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT – DR

Section 143Section 2Section 36

…hich proves a position that no working capital funds borrowed from banks were utilised for advancing loans to its directors. Placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd., reported in (2009) 178 Taxmann 135 Ld. AR submitted that the loans advanced to directors were out of its ITA 1985/Bang/2016 Page 4 of 8 own funds and not from borrowed funds and therefore no interest could be imputed. 6 On the contrary Ld. Senior DR submitted that assessee could not substantiate its claim by merely relying upon working capital obtained from bank that reduced…

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

What is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

M/S. Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

M/S Pradeep Trading Company, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-44(2), Kolkata

Sunil Devakinandan Seksaria, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 31(3)(Earlier ACIT-Circle-2, Thane), Mumbai

M/S Hangya Ice Cream Pvt Ltd, Hubbali vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1), Hubbali

M/S. Industrial Develop, Ment Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

Rubee Air Freight Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Kolkata

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai

The Supreme Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

M/S Supreme Overseas Exports Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ward-12(3), Bangalore