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.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Powerlinks Transmission Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Powerlinks Transmission Ltd., 10Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Circle 20(1), New Delhi. Distt. Centre, Jasola, New Delhi. Pan: Aabct7775M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoneet Dalal, Shri Vishu Goel & Shri Dipanshu Mutreja, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th January, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Transmission Of Electricity. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.28,76,36,810/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Its Revised Return On 28Th September, 2012 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Unabsorbed Depreciation. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2)/142(1) Were Issued. The Assessing Officer, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Asked The Assessee To Explain The Claim Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Iii) On Account Of Interest & To Furnish The Information Regarding Details Of Investments Made As On 31.03.2011 & 31.03.2012

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal, Shri Vishu Goel &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…ances. It was argued that the investments in mutual funds and FDRs were from own funds and not from any borrowed funds. Relying on various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), it was argued that if there are funds available with the assessee in the form of overdraft/loans then presumption would arise that investment is out of interest free funds generated or available with the company, if interest free funds were sufficient to make investment. It was 3 substantiated before the CIT(A) that the own capital and fr…

M/S. T & T Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6499/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shrik. Narasimha Chary & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143

…ough to cover the investment. Therefore, the presumption would be that the investment in exempt income yielding investment is made out of interest-free funds as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009)313 ITR 340 (Bom)/ 178 Taxman 135 (Bom) wherein it has been laid M/s. T& T Motors Ltd. v. Addl. CIT Range- 16, New Delhi /I.T.A. No.6499/Del/2014/A.Y.10-11 Page 12 of 14 down that where the assessee had both interest bearing borrowed funds and interest- free own funds and if own funds were sufficient to meet investment yielding tax free income, then it can…

Sharma Cars Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-8, Now Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1655/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1655/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sharma Cars P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.8 “Kayakalp”, N.H. No.8 Vs Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad 382330. Pan: Aadcs 0305 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri T.P. Hemani & Shri P.B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, and Shri P.B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…r Ltd., 363 ITR 474 (Guj) ii) CIT Vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., 354 ITR 630 (Guj) iii) CIT Vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd., 352 ITR 583 (Guj) iv) CIT Vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd., 41 taxmann.com 540 (Guj) v) CIT Vs. Reliance utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) vi) Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT, 298 ITR 298 (SC) 14. Since the assessee has more interest free funds with it than the one advanced by it, therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Power Corporation (supra) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that no disa…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1654/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodacit (Ltu)-2 M/S. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. World Trade Centre Glenmark Huse, Hdo Corporate Centre-1, 29Th Flor Vs. Bldg., Wing A, B.D. Sawant Marg Cuff Parade Chakala, Opp. Western Express Mumbai 400005 High Way, Andheri (E), Mumbai Pan – Aaacg2207L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shi Rajesh DumorFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta &

Section 115JSection 14ASection 41(1)Section 80I

…ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that since the assessee has sufficient own funds, no interest disallowance can be made u/s.14A. For this, the assessee has placed reliance upon the following case laws:  CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom)  CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd ( 2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.)(HC). Furthermore, the ld. CIT(A) has pleaded that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have hled that the disallowance u/s. 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned. For this, the ld. Counsel of the assessee has placed reliance upon the following case laws:  Joint Investments vs. C…

Jayram Lilaram Makhija, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1495/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1495/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar Sahu

…st free funds available. We find ourselves in agreement with the aforesaid plea of the assessee in the light of the decision rendered in the case of (i) CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 370 (Guj), (ii) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) & (iii) CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.). Therefore, as demonstrate on behalf of the assessee towards availability of interest free surplus funds sufficient to meet the ITA No. 1495/Ahd/17 [Jayram Lilaram Makhija vs. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - corresponding investments (not yielding taxable income), the action of the Revenue towards…

M/S. Premium Polyalloys Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Vadodara

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 372/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 372 & 2387/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Anil R Shah & Ms

Section 14A

…dicial precedents in the given situation. We straightway find merit in the plea of the assessee with regard to the judicial precedents in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 418 (Guj) and CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). ITA Nos. 372 & 2387/Ahd/16 [M/s. Premium Pollyalloys Pvt. Ltd.] A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 3 - 6. The disallowance towards administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is however sustained in the absence of any cogent reason for departure from the statutory formula. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs.5,98,488/- is deleted and the r…

M/S. Premium Polyalloys Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Baroda

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2387/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anil R Shah & Ms

Section 14A

Raymon Patel Gelatine Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Baroda

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 806/AHD/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

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

…ble to the assessee. In such circumstances, in the light of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd (354 ITR 222) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (313 ITR 340), the presumption has to be that the investments are made out of interest free funds. That is the approach consistently taken by various coordinate ITA Nos 278/Ahd/2009 and 806/Ahd/2012 Assessment year: 2004-05 Page 4 of 7 benches of this Tribunal. Clearly therefore, whichever way one looks at it, there is no legally sustainable foundation for t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sajjan India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee and revenue for AY 2011-12 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4729/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldcit-8(1)(2) M/S Sajjan India Ltd., Room No. 651, 6Th Floor, Matulya Centre, ‘A’ No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ground Floor, Senapati Bapat Mumbai-20. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaacs6498M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) Respondent By : Shri S.L. Jain (Ca) Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arun KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Jain (CA)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 8D(2)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT-8(1)(2) M/s Sajjan India Ltd., Room No. 651, 6th Floor, Matulya Centre, ‘A’ No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ground Floor, Senapati Bapat Mumbai-20. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400013. PAN: AAACS6498M Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (DR) Respondent by : Shri S.L. Jain (CA) Date of Hearing : 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Poggen Amp Nagarsheth Powertronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2446/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vasant C. Tanna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2012-13 The ITO, M/s. Poggen AMP Ward-3(1)(1), Nagarsheth Powertronics Ahmedabad Vs Pvt. Ltd. C-1-/B, 4402, (Appellant) GIDC Estate, Phase-IV, Vatva, Ahmedabad-382445 PAN: AAACP9130B (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Vasant C. Tanna, A.R. Date of hearing : 08-01-2019 Date of pronouncement : 24-01-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, arises from or…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Prasanna Purple Mobility Solutions Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 158/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

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

…ions of the assessee observed that on factual parameters, the assessee was having adequate interest free funds and therefore, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. reported as 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) has provided relief to the assessee. The relevant portion of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)’s order is as follows: A.Y.2012-13 “5.10. Decision :- I have perused the assessment order, submissions made by the appellant and the material on record. I find merit in the submission of the appellant. It is seen that AO in the assessment order disallowed t…

Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 398/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. N.K. Saini, Hon'Ble & Shri. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh Lalit Mohan Jindal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Camp Bench at Jalandhar Before Shri. N.K. Saini, Hon'ble Vice President and Shri. Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 398 & 225/Asr/2018 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2012-13 The DCIT, Circle-4, Sh Rakesh Kumar Gupta, बनाम H.No. 30, Mohalla No. 9, Jalandhar Jalandhar Cantt. Jalandhar "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO:AENPG1409G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by: Shri Sudhir Sehgal Revenue by: Sh Lalit Mohan Jindal, D.R Date of Hearing: 15.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 17.01.2019 O R D E R Per N.K. Saini, Vice President: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the sepa…

Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 225/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. N.K. Saini, Hon'Ble & Shri. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh Lalit Mohan Jindal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Yamir Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle - 8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 534/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.534/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Yamir Packaging P.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cir.8 11, Yes House Ahmedabad. Shivalik Plaza Opp: Ama, Iim Road Polytechnic, Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan Aaacy 0728 N.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…- 363 ITR 474 (Guj); > CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. - 354 ITR 630 (Guj); > CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. - 352 ITR 583 (Guj); > CIT vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I). Ltd. - (2014) taxntann.com 540 (Guj); > CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. - 313 ITR 340 (Bom); 5 > Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT - 298 ITR 298 (SC); On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon order of the AO. 7. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. As far as the calculation of interest expenditure for capitalization under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act representing the expenses for acqui…

Kare Electronics & Development Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 799/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kare Electronics & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Development Private Limited, Income Tax, Flat No.101, 1St Floor, Eden Park, Circle – 11(5), No.20, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aabck 7679 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…has sufficient own non- interest-bearing funds to cover investment in shares. In support of the assessee’s contentions, the learned AR placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., (313 ITR 340) and also CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., (ITA No. 330 of 2012) wherein it was held that, if share capital and reserves are available along with borrowed capital, a presumption can be made that investment in Page 5 of 17 shares has been made out of own funds. It is submitted by the learned AR that in the above factual and legal matrix, the disallowance…

M/S. Maa Kamakhya Herbals Ltd., Haridwar vs. Addl. CIT, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1415/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12] M/S Kamakhya Herbals Ltd Vs. The Addl. Cit D-28, Industrial Area Range Haridwar Haridwar Pan : Aaacy 0582 A [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh K. Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…e advances. Moreover, it can be seen from the chart annexed that in every F.Y, the assessee was having surplus own funds to make advances. On the given facts, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 followed in HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 squarely apply. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court [supra] we do not find any merit in the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). We direct the AO to delete the impugned disallowance. 11. Before closing, the decisions relied upon by the ld. D…

Autoline Industries Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2306/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune15 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal. & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14A

…The Ld.A.R. to substantiate his contentions referred to the Balance-Sheet of assessee as on 31.03.2010. The Ld.A.R. contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported as 313 ITR 340, no disallowance in respect of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules is warranted. 4. In respect of additional ground, Ld.A.R. submitted that the A.O. while computing Book Profits under Sec.115JB of the Act, made addition of Rs.27,56,582/- i.e., the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. No such add…

Hem Kiran Diesels, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -Kolhapur, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed to this extent

ITA 1085/PUN/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

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

…urplus funds and such funds are utilised as interest free advances even for a non-business purpose, there cannot be any disallowance of interest paid on interest bearing loans. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), has held that where an assessee possessed sufficient interest free funds of its own which were generated in the course of relevant financial year, apart from substantial shareholders’ funds, presumption stands established that the investments in sister concerns were made by the assessee out of interest free funds and, therefore, no par…

Hem Kiran Diesels, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -Kolhapur, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed to this extent

ITA 1084/PUN/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

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

M/S Morani Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the addition so made by the AO is hereby set- aside

ITA 1088/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT) a

Section 40Section 40A(2)

…was placed on the following decisions:- • Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016) 379 ITR 347/ 236 Taxman 447 (SC) • CIT Vs. Ram KishanVerma(2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj) • CIT Vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj) • CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 16. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has explained the business necessity of taking the premises on rent and placing the security deposit. Further, the AO has not established the nexus between the…