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 367,735 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.

Shriram Krishnaji Surve, Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 979/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &

Section 36(1)(iii)

…made out of interest free funds. In support of his contentions the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions : i. S.A. Builders Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 288 ITR 1 (SC); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). 4. On the other hand Dr. Vivek Aggarwal representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiate that the possession of studio flat was handed over to the assessee during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The total cost of studio flat was R…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara Circle, Satara vs. Shriram Krishnaji Surve, Satara

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2485/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &

Section 36(1)(iii)

Shriram Krishnaji Surve, Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2115/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &

Section 36(1)(iii)

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Express Newspapaers (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2536/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, Circle-3(2)(1), M/S Indian Express Newspaper R.No. 608, Aayakar Bhavan, (Mumbai) P. Ltd., Express M.K. Road, Tower, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Vs. Pan: Aaaci2555F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Respondent By : Shri V. Mohan (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR)For Respondent: Shri V. Mohan (AR)

Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…t financial year as recorded in para 3.1 of his order. 3 ITA No. 2536 Mum 2018-M/s Indian Express Newspaper (Mumbai) P. Ltd. The assessee also relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529 Bom) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (313 ITR 340 Bom) on the ratio of law that if the reserve funds are in far excess of the investment, the assumption is that the investments are made out of own funds and no borrowed funds are utilized. The ld. CIT(A), deleted the interest disallowance of Rs. 54,34,825/- by following the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11…

ACIT 24(1), Mumbai vs. Chamunda Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit-24(1), M/S Chamunda Builders & R.No. 604, 6Th Floor, Developers, 111, Chamunda Piramal Chamber, Parel, Heritage, Behind Jivan Vikash Mumbai-400012. Hospital, Jijamata Road Vs. Koldongri, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. Pan: Aaafc4837H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR)For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)

Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80I

…hand, the ld. DR for the revenue relied upon the order of Assessing Officer. 8. We have noted that on similar facts, the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue for AY 2012-13 by following the decision of Reliance Utility and Power [313 ITR 340 (Bom)]. The coordinate bench confirmed the deletion of similar disallowance for AY 2012-13 by passing the following order: “11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom), it has been held that where an assessee is having own funds mor…

Kanakia Spaces Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed for

ITA 7288/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta with Shri Govind Javeri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai ( Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…sion of Supreme Court in S.A Builder (158 Taxman 74 SC). In alternative submissions that the assessee has sufficient interest free funds the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power ltd (313 ITR 340 Bom). 15. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the order of the lower authorities below. We have also deliberated on various case law relied by the lower authorities and the ld 17 ITA No. 7288, 7289 Mum 17 & 209 and 210 Mum 18-M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Representatives. We have noted that the ld CIT…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…man 370 (Cal) • CIT v. Caroline Investment Ltd.: 87 Taxman 238 (Cal) • CIT v. Kanoria Investment (P) Ltd.: 232 ITR 7 (Cal) • CIT vs. Hotel Savera: 239 ITR 795 (Mad) • Smt. Chanchal Katyal v. CIT: 298 ITR 182 (All.) • CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following cases, wherein, the Courts have repeatedly held that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: 99 • Godrej & Boyce…

Shri Vinay Bhasin, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5822/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs Mr. Vinay Bhasin Jcit C-14, South Extension, Range-37 Part-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 143(1)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 vs Mr. Vinay Bhasin JCIT C-14, South Extension, Range-37 Part-II, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAAPB3445J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. Sh. Shailesh Aggarwal Revenue by Sh. P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 23.04.2019 ORDER PER SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld.CIT(Appeals)-20, New Delhi dated 18.09.2015 for AY 2011- 12.…

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

ITA 3883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR

Section 142Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

…eleventure Ltd. 51 DTR 98 (Del.) iii. CIT Vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del.) Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 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…

M/S. Rtc Restaurants (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 2942/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.D.R

…11, vide Order Dated 21st May, 2018 in ITA.Nos.4539 & 5058/Del./2014 following the decision of the Hon’ble 7 ITA.No.2942/Del./2016 M/s. RTC Restaurants (India) Ltd., New Delhi. Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), deleted the similar addition on the above reasons. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) held as unde…

DCIT vs. M/S Kemwell Pvt. Ltd

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 210/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Renuka Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 43ASection 43A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent M/s. Kemwell Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner of Kemwell House, Income Tax, 209/Bang/14 2009-10 11, Tumkur Road, Circle-11(5), BANGALORE BANGALORE [PAN: AAACK5854F] M/s. Kemwell Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Kemwell House, Income Tax, 210/Bang/14 2009-10 11, Tumkur Road, Circle-11(5), BANGALORE BANGALORE [PAN: AAACK5854F] Appellant by : Shri B.R. Renuka Prasad, Advocate Respondent by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT Date of hearing…

M/S Kemwell Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 209/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Renuka Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 43ASection 43A(1)

Bhagwati Gases Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 345/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…in sufficient quantity, a presumption can be drawn that its own funds were utilized for the security deposit in question. For this proposition of law, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT-vs.- Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), and looking from both angles, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. 16. Ground no. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition regarding PF on account of employees’ contribution. 17. Brief facts of the case are that the AO added back an am…

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bhagwati Gases Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 339/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Olive Bar & Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1177/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1177/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit-Circle -13(1)(1) M/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No.218, बनाम/ 14Th Pali Hill, Tourist Hotel Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Union Park, Khar (W) Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 052. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-5346-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1178/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit-Circle -13(1)(1) M/S. Olive Café South Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Room No.218, बनाम/ 14Th Pali Hill, Tourist Hotel Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Union Park, Khar (W) Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 052. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabco-1454-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.660/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd Dcit-Circle -13(1)(1) 14Th Pali Hill, Tourist Hotel बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Room No.218, Union Park, Khar (W) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-5346-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Abhi Rama Karthikeyan- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Mahesh Rajora - Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mahesh Rajora - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Abhi Rama Karthikeyan- Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

…tion was to be drawn in assessee’s favor that interest free loans were funded out of own funds / interest free funds available with the assessee. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340]. Another plea raised was the fact that the loans were given to an associate for the purpose of carrying on its business activity and therefore, the disallowance was not warranted in terms of ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in S.A.Builders Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1]. However, not convinced with assessee’s explanations / submissions, the…

Patan Solar Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5942/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Patan Solar Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit-13(1)(2), Mumbai 602, Western Edge-I, Aayakarbhavan, M.K.Road Vs. Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020 Borivali (West), Mumbai- 400092. Pan No. Aafcp6744A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal & Mr. Tanmaypadhke,Ars Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal & Mr. TanmayPadhke,ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…current investments are at Rs.2,04,25,400/-. 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 out of assessee's own funds in case the same are in excess of the investme…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Veto Electro Power India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4931/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blem/S. Veto Electropowers India Pvt. Ltd., Acit, – Circle -11(3)(2) V. D-2, 1St Floor, Rom No. 427, Malad Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ramachandra Lane Extension, Mumbai-400 020 Kachapada, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

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

…(A) accepted the contentions of the assessee that when assessee had sufficient interest free funds no interest is liable to be disallowed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340]. 6. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. 7. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. It is not in dispute that the assessee has sufficient interest free funds for making i…

Ahmedabad Cement Company, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2180/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Somogyan Pal, Sr. D.R

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

…e material facts demonstrate that assessee was having sufficient interest free own fund as against the investment made in the shares, therefore, after following the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power ltd. 331 ITR 340, we do not justify the decision of ld. CIT(A). However, we observe that without incurring administrative expenditure, it is not possible to earn exempt income, therefore, we restrict the disallowance to the extent of administrative expenditure computed by the assessing officer as per computation at page 5 of the assessment order to the amount of…

Yuvak Ventrures Private Limited (Successors to Aikone Marketing and Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 144/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Yuvak Ventures Pvt. Ltd., (As Successors To Aikone Marketing & Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,) 405/408, B ……………. Appellant Wing, Navbharat Estate Zakaria Bunder Road Sewree, Mumbai – 400 015 Pan No:Aagca6159B V/S

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh. A.Thar &For Respondent: Shri. B.B.Rajendra Prasad &

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…(Mum 1 ilh )  Aditya Medisales Ltd. Vs. ACIT (20! 6) 67 taxmann.com 270 (Ahd. Trib.) Proposition : No disallowance towards interest can he made in cases where the own funds are higher than the tax free investments  CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.)  CIT v. HDFC Bank (366 ITR 505) (Bom )  HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom.)  CIT v. Microlabs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar.)  Mrs. Anahaita Nalin Shah v. ACIT (ITA No. 71 1 5/Mum/20l 3) (Mum.)  Hind Filters Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 1792 & 417/M/20I3) (Mum.)  Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT (ITA No. S63/M/201 3) (M…

Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1420/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1420/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cir-1(1)(2), Opp. Old Excise Chawky, Vs. Ahmedabad S.M. Road, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR

Section 145ASection 14ASection 194CSection 40

…borrowed fund. Therefore there cannot be any question for any disallowance on account of interest expenses. 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.…