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 367,514 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.

Ashim Samanta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1390/MUM/2017[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2013-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 14A

…s of Rule 8D 3 ITA 1390/Mum/2017 could be invoked; but, in the present case, nothing of that sort was done by the AO. The Ld.AR submitted that in view of the ratio of judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities Pvt Ltd 313 ITR 340 (Bom), the addition as made by the AO should be deleted. 5. Secondly, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has maintained separate books of account in respect of the dividend income earned by pointing out to paper book pages 34 & 35, which a copy of P&L Account and balance-sheet, wherein the assessee submitted that the only expenses were ban…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Aanchal Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal i

ITA 1132/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr.A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Vs Dcit, M/S. Aanchal Ispat Pvt.Ltd., Circle-3(1), P-7, J.L.No.05, Mouza-Chamrall, Chowringhee Square, P.S.-Liluah, National Highway- Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th 6, Howrah-711204. Floor, Room No.19, Pan-Aaacv8542M Kolkata-700069. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.-No.-49/Kol/2016 (In Ita No.1132/Kol/2016) [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Vs Dcit, M/S. Aanchal Ispat Pvt.Ltd., J.L.No.05, Mouza-Chamrall, Circle-3(1), P-7, P.S.-Liluah, National Highway-6, Chowringhee Square, Howrah-711204. Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Pan-Aaacv8542M Floor, Room No.19, Kolkata-700069. (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…from interest bearing loans. He fails to dispute the CIT(A) clinching finding of fact that assessee’s own capital was very much sufficient to cover the impugned interests free advances as per Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Reliance Utility & Power 0 Ltd. 313 ITR 340. It has further come on record that all the advances had been made in earlier assessment years involving no such disallowance. We therefore affirm the CIT(A) findings under challenge. 5. The Revenue’s 2nd substantive ground seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action adding alleged unaccounted sales of Rs.76,84,308/- as detected by DGCEI ITA N…

Manilal Malashibhal Gada, Pune vs. Assistant Eputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 192/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai

Section 14ASection 234ASection 57

…t there is requirement of remanding this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall not only examine the applicability of cited decisions in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported as 313 ITR 340 and in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported as 366 ITR 505 but also the Assessing Officer needs to be aware of the fact of restricting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income included in the total income of assessee. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the set…

Prabhakar Mishra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-44, Kolkata

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

ITA 2255/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2255/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prabhakar Mishra -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aezpm 7452 B ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144

…S A Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) ; Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd reported in 280 ITR 525 (Cal) ; Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) ; Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd (2015) 376 ITR 553 (Guj) ; Hon’ble Andhrapradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Gopalakrishna Muralidhar reported in 47 ITR 469 (AP) ; Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Woolcombers of India Ltd vs CIT reported in 134 ITR 219 (Cal)…

L.K. Jain (HUF), Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1623/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 144Section 14ASection 8D

…ated 31.10.2017 wherein it has been held that the availability of funds are to be seen as on the date of Balance Sheet. The said proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported as 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) which has been applied by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal. As far as availability of interest free funds with the assessee are covered and the investment made by the assessee, income from which is exempt from tax, then no disallowance merits to be made in the hands of the assessee u/s.14A of the Act. Accordingly, Assessing Officer is direct…

ACIT Corp Cir 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Asian Peroxide Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 452/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 451 & 452/Mds/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Asian Peroxides Ltd., 69, 3rd Floor, Leelavathi Buildings, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Armenian Street, Chennai 600 001. [PAN:AAACA6213G] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,…

ACIT Corp Cir 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Asian Peroxide Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 451/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 36(1)(iii)

JCIT, Rang-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 575/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 461/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke M/s Chambal Fertilisers & The JCIT, Vs. Chemicals Limited, Range-2, District- Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC 9762 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 575/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke The ACIT, M/s Chambal Fertilise…

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 14A

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…of the Act can be made only if assessing officer establishes proximate nexus of expenditure with exempt income. It has similarly been held in the following decisions: • CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd.: 336 ITR 434 (P&H) CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom) • • CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.: 363 ITR 474 (Guj). In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the provisions of sub- section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 14A of the Act, as discussed supra, permits the assessing officer to apply the procedure of computing disallowance 57 by applying the formula prescribed in Rule 8D of t…

M/S Rpa Developers, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1026/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Sinha, CIT DR alongwith

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 3Section 36(1)(iii)Section 72

…issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Hero Cycles P. Ltd Vs. CIT’, 379 ITR 347 (SC), and of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.’ 313 ITR 340, wherein, the Hon'ble Courts have held that where the own funds of the assessee are sufficient to meet the interest free advances given during the year, then the presumption would arise that such advances or investments have been made out of the own funds of the assessee. It is the prerogative of the assessee either to advance interest free or…

Tupelo Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2427/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2014-15 Tupelo Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 296, Forest Lane, Circle 25(2), Neb Sarai, New Delhi. Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110066 (Pan: Aaect3335J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Department By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

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

…under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It is also pertinent that the processing fees of Rs. 62 lacs incurred on the borrowings made from Yes Bank were allowed as deduction. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 has held as under: “10. If there be interest-free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest-free funds available. In our opinion the Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.'s case (supra) had th…

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Specialty Restaurants Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 922/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 30

…e Balance Sheet and this finding of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) could not be dislodged by the department before us. In such a scenario, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT-vs.- Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 10/10/2018 (M. Balaganesh) Judicial Member Dated: 10th October, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) 8 Specialty Restaurants Ltd.AY 2010-11 Copy of the order forwarded t…

Bapa Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1490/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Bapa Real Estate Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 156, Maker Chamber Vi Income Tax, Central Circle-38 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcb-4559-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Reepal G. Tralshawala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Singh, Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…erefore, in case of composite funds, a presumption is drawn in assessee’s favor that the investments were made from own resources rather than from borrowed funds as per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] & CIT Vs. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505]. Therefore, the interest disallowance as computed by the assessee, in our opinion, was quite sufficient to meet the requirements of law. Resultantly, the additional disallowance of Rs.21.57 Lacs [Rs.25.25 Lacs – Rs.3.68 Lacs] as worked out by Ld. AO u/r 8D(2)(ii) stand deleted. 9. In nutshell, accepting the suo-…

Rass Healthcare Private Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1125/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1125/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Kusai GoawalaFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 37Section 57

…here was any purchase of furniture and fixture for the office premises involving banking transactions. The CIT(A) is the of the view that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Ltd. reported as 313 ITR 340 is not applicable in the case of assessee wherein it has been held that if the assessee has own as well as borrowed funds, a presumption can be made that advances for non business purposes have been made out of its own funds provide that interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investment. But in the case of assessee, there was own funds…

Shailesh Nagindas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 6165/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6165/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shailesh Nagindas Ito 16(1)(3), Shah 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, 604B, Chandanbala R.R Tardeo Road, V. Thakkar Marg, Walkeshwar Mumbai-400007 Mumbai 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagps5379A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra S. Sanghavi Revenue By : Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6165/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.07.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11 Which Appellate Order Was Later Rectified By Learned Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 30-09-2016, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6165/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra S. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ended that interest free loans and advances to the tune of Rs. 1.21 crores were also available with the assessee in addition to own capital. The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) as well as decision in the case of and HDFC Bank Limited v. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) , while on the other hand the Ld. DR relied upon the order of authorities below. 15. We have considered rival contentions and have perused the material on record including cited case laws . We have observed that the assessee has borrowed interest bea…

Dy. C.I.T.1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 365/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit- 1(2), Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Vs. Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 80Section 80I

…icient interest free fund to cover investment, disallowance u/s 14A for interest and administrative expenses is not justified. 51. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where 25 C.O. No.12/RPR/2018 interest bearing funds are available and the interest free funds are more than investments made, the presumption is that the investment in the tax free securities would have been made out of the interest free funds with the assessee. 52.…

Ranadey Micronutrients Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 638/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…the assessee is having interest free funds aggregating to Rs.4,83,83,857/-. As against this investment by assessee over a period of time is Rs.4,47,60,486/-. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported as 313 ITR 340 has held that where both interest free funds and interest bearing funds are available and the interest free funds are more than the investment made, the presumption is that the investment is made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. The said decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the context of Se…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 43B

…2)(ii) of the I T Rules, since the own funds available with the assessee was more than the value of investments. In this regard, the Ld CIT(A) followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (313 ITR 340). However the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made out of administrative expenses as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) computed @ 0.5% of the value of average investments. The Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the same for the purposes of sec. 115JB of the Act also for computing Book Profit. The assessee is aggrieved by the direction so given Ld CIT(A) f…

Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5842/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kotak Mahindra The Addl. Commissioner Of Investments Ltd. 27 Bkc, C- Vs. Income Tax Range 3(2) 27 G Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- Complex Bandra(E), 400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaach1075K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farrokh Irani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Farrokh Irani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t the appellant’s own funds are in excess of tax-free income-yielding investments and there is a presumption that interest free funds are first deployed in earning tax-free income. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom) The Ld. counsel submits that there is a nexus between non- interest bearing funds and tax-free investments. It is stated that the taxable interest income is far in excess of interest expenditure. Relying on the decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017)…