CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

Praham India LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…ance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act should be made. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) S.A. Builders v/s CIT, 92007] 288 ITR 001 (SC); ii) Hindalco Industries Co. v/s CIT, [2016] 389 ITR 430 (All.); and iii) CIT v/s Pudukottai Co. Pvt. Ltd., [1972] 84 ITR 788 (Mad.). 7. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the factual matrix of the cas…

Kewal Kiran Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kewal Kiran Finance Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd., Kewal Kiran Estate, Vs. 12(3)(2), (Room No. 460/7, L.B. Patel Road, 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Behind Tirupatiudyog, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020). 400063. Pan No. Aadck2902P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ronak Doshi & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2019

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kewal Kiran Finance Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd., Kewal Kiran Estate, Vs. 12(3)(2), (Room No. 460/7, L.B. Patel Road, 147, 1st floor, Aayakar Behind TirupatiUdyog, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020). 400063. PAN No. AADCK2902P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ronak Doshi & Ms. Ayushi Modani, ARs Revenue by : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR Date of Hearing : 13/05/2019 Date of pronouncement: 28/05/2019 ORDER PER N.K.…

Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…ellery and shares were out of such funds. Therefore, no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) could be made. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Reliance Utility and Power Ltd., [2005] 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Reliance Industries Ltd., [2005] 410 ITR 466 (SC). Besides the above, learned Authorised Representative also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble P&H High Court in CIT v/s Holyfaith International Pvt. Ltd., [2018] 407 ITR 445 (P&H). 14. The learned Departmental Representative rel…

Dy. C.I.T. - 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ami Polymer Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed in term of the above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7401/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner Of Ami Polymer Pvt. Ltd. Income, A-104, 1St Floor, Circle-12(1)(1), Panchsheel Heights, Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Dahanukarwadi, Mumbai-20 Kandivali(W), Mumbai-400 067 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaeca6387P अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Satischandra Rajore, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ms. Jhankhana Shah, Ms. Zankhana Sanghvi, Ars’ ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24-05-2019

…e interest free fund available with the appellant was far in excess of investments in capital work in progress and in non-business investments. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) mentioned above, I hold that the disallowance cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I delete the disallowance of Rs. 24,61,097/-. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed.” 7 On the basis of the above, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. We have considered the factual aspect and noted that the asses…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…mption will apply that the assessee made investments out of own interest free funds available with it. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom.) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom.) to contend that no interest expenditure can be disallowed as there will be presumption that the assessee made investments out of own interest free funds available with it. The learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that in AY 2004-05 in assessee‟s own case in ITA no. 212/Mum/200…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…mption will apply that the assessee made investments out of own interest free funds available with it. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom.) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom.) to contend that no interest expenditure can be disallowed as there will be presumption that the assessee made investments out of own interest free funds available with it. The learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that in AY 2004-05 in assessee‟s own case in ITA no. 212/Mum/200…

Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15

…ngs, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) of Rs.1,99,28,763/- by following the decision of jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and “CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.” (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and also decision in the case of assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No.6373/M/2014 whereas the disallowance under rule 8D2(iii) of Rs.3,59,38,825/- was directed to be calculated by reducing the investments which have not yielded exempt income during the year or only calculate the disallowance by taking those investments which yielde…