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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Mhi Boilers P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 712/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.712/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax L & T Mhi Boilers Private Limited 3Rd Floor, L & T House, N.M.Marg, Circle-2(2)(1) बनाम/ Room No.545, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Ballard Estate, Fort M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 098 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcl-2635-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : R.P.Meena, Ld.Cit Dr Assessee By : Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: R.P.Meena, Ld.CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…eleted by observing that the Share Capital of Rs.50 Crores was much more than the investments of Rs.23.02 Crores and therefore, no disallowance was called for in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] & CIT Vs. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505]. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri R.P.Meena, submitted that their mere participation in the bidding process would not entitle the assessee to claim deduction of expenditure since manufacturing facility was not ready for production during imp…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…sufficient own funds/net worth as compared to the investments made as can be seen from the audited financial statements and accordingly, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) (Bom.), CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom) and CIT v. Micro labs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar). Finally, the Ld. counsel submits that the AO has to examine the computation made by the assessee and only if, on an objective satisfaction recorded by the AO with regard to the correctness of th…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…sufficient own funds/net worth as compared to the investments made as can be seen from the audited financial statements and accordingly, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) (Bom.), CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom) and CIT v. Micro labs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar). Finally, the Ld. counsel submits that the AO has to examine the computation made by the assessee and only if, on an objective satisfaction recorded by the AO with regard to the correctness of th…

DCIT, Cir-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 471/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…second and third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. In the instant case, since the assessee company is having sufficient own funds , by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom), we direct the ld AO not to make any disallowance of interest under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. With regard to the disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, in consonance with the decision of this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141 , we direct the ld AO to consider only investments (excl…

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(2), Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 421/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…second and third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. In the instant case, since the assessee company is having sufficient own funds , by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom), we direct the ld AO not to make any disallowance of interest under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. With regard to the disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, in consonance with the decision of this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141 , we direct the ld AO to consider only investments (excl…

DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 496/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…second and third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. In the instant case, since the assessee company is having sufficient own funds , by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom), we direct the ld AO not to make any disallowance of interest under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. With regard to the disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, in consonance with the decision of this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141 , we direct the ld AO to consider only investments (excl…

M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 483/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…second and third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. In the instant case, since the assessee company is having sufficient own funds , by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom), we direct the ld AO not to make any disallowance of interest under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. With regard to the disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, in consonance with the decision of this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141 , we direct the ld AO to consider only investments (excl…

Sai Flipped Coils Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1) (Old: Dy.CIT, Circle-8), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 396/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 395 To 396/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12) Sai Flipped Coils Ltd., Ito, बनाम/ 75/B, Santej Vadsar Road, Ward – (4)(1)(1), Vs. Santej, Ahmedabad. Gandhinagar – 382 721 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 0475 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani & Parimal Parmar, अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r opinion the Tribunal has committed no error. Basically the entire disallowance has been made on the basis of facts emerging on record. The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340/178 Taxman 135. Additionally, we find that the Assessing Officer had, without giving a finding as to how much administrative expenditure have been incurred to earn the exempt income, had made disallowance. In the earlier years also, similar position obtained. That being the fact, no question of law arises.” ITA Nos.395 & 396/Ahd/2016 Sai Flipped…

Sai Flipped Coils Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1) (Old: Dy.CIT, Circle-8), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 395/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 395 To 396/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12) Sai Flipped Coils Ltd., Ito, बनाम/ 75/B, Santej Vadsar Road, Ward – (4)(1)(1), Vs. Santej, Ahmedabad. Gandhinagar – 382 721 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 0475 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani & Parimal Parmar, अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…r opinion the Tribunal has committed no error. Basically the entire disallowance has been made on the basis of facts emerging on record. The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340/178 Taxman 135. Additionally, we find that the Assessing Officer had, without giving a finding as to how much administrative expenditure have been incurred to earn the exempt income, had made disallowance. In the earlier years also, similar position obtained. That being the fact, no question of law arises.” ITA Nos.395 & 396/Ahd/2016 Sai Flipped…