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.

Cil Nova Petrochemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 388/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…med as carried from these surplus funds. No notional interest ought to be calculated for capitalization. In order to fortify ourselves, we would like to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom). In view of the above, this ground of appeal is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 13th August, 2018. (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER…

Kewal Kiran Clothing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addt CIT RG 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 281/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Kewal Kiran Clothing Ltd., V. Addt.Cit, Range- 9(2) Kewal Kiran Estate, 460/7, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, I.B. Patel Road., Near Western Mumbai-400 020 Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Gandhi &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 14A

…own funds and not from borrowed funds. Therefore, he submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505] and CIT v. Reliance 3 M/s. Kewal Kiran Clothing Ltd., Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is required to be made. 5. Coming to Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), it is the only submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that only those investments which yielded dividend income should be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Reliance is placed in the…

Addl CIT RG 6(2), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3034/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dadia

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

…ut of its own funds and that so far as the borrowed funds were concerned, they have been utilised in the business of the assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) as well as the judgment in the case of CIT vs K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1260 of 2009 dated 08.08.2011 that once it is established that the investment are out of own funds and not out of borrowed funds, interest expenditure would not automatically be considered for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act on account of Rule 8D(2)(ii) o…

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Varun Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2442/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalasstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–5(3)(2), Mumbai V/S M/S. Varun Shipping Co. Ltd. Laxmi Building, 6, Shoorji Vallabhdas ……………. Respondent Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacv1658C

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubangotra

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…crore. Thus, the surplus fund available with the assessee is far in excess of the investments made. That being the case, applying the ratio of the Hon'ble 5 M/s. Varun Shipping Co. Ltd. Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505, disallowance of interest expenses under rule 8D(2)(ii) cannot be made. As regards disallowance of administrative expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to restrict such disallowance to the exempt income earned by the assessee in…

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 805/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR

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

…support of its contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. UTI Bank Ltd., 215 Taxman 8. It also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340. The ld.AO was not satisfied with the contentions of the assessee and he proceeded to disallow the expenditure incurred in accordance with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules 1962. The working made by the AO in both these years read as under: Assessment Year : 2012-13 Interest Expenses for computation u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D Rs. 40,09,78,000/- A Investmen…

Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 2744/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR

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

Khandwala Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3100/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3100/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri V. M. Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, DR

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

…the case of S. A. d'C1T (188 TR 11 (SC) that the interest free advance has been made for the coral expediency then no disallowance could be made under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act. The AR also relied in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Born) wherein it was held that if there were funds available both interest-free and overdraft and /or loan taken, then a presumption would arise that investment would be out of interest-free funds generated or available with the company, if the interest- free funds were sufficient to meet the investment. In this case this presumption was establi…

I.T.O WD - 6(2), Kolkata. vs. M/S Jagadhatri Vyapaar Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in part and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…that the assesse has interest free funds within the form of ‘share capital and reserves’ in excess of the amounts advanced to its sister concerns as interest free loans.The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 held held that: “If there be interest free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investment 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. Since the capital of appellant is more than the personal investments no disallowance of interest u/s.…

Amba Metals, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 50(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6884/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singhamba Metals, Vs I.T. O Ward-50(1), 21/6, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi.

Section 36

…were relied upon : (i) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. v CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC); (ii) DCIT v. Incite Homecare Products (P) Ltd. 2017 (8) TMI 185; (iii) Pr. CIT v. Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. 2017(8) TMI 185; (iv) CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340; (v) CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505; (vi) CIT v. Amod Stamping (P.) Ltd. (2014) 223 Taxman 256; (vii) CIT v. Consumer Marking (India) (P.) Ltd. ITA No. 646 of 2015; (viii) M/s. R.N. Gupta and Co. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT ITA No. 848/Chd/2015; (ix) Hotz Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT 2018 (5) TMI 1630; and (x) Surrender Kumar Bhuraria v. ITO 2018 (5…

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5471/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 80I

…t of his contention, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– 28 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. i) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.); iv) ACB India Ltd. v/s ACIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del.); v) ACIT v/s Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 83 ITR 103; vi) M/s. Toshvin Analytical Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.3089/ Mum./2013 (Mum.); vii) Sylvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.8581/ Mum./2011, (Mum.); and viii) S. Krishnamurthy v/s ACIT, ITA no.6207/Mum./2012 (Mum.). 38. The learned D…

Graphisads Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4770/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Graphisads Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle 12(1), C/o M/s Kumar Piyush & Co CAs New Delhi. C-5, LGF, Lajpat Nagar – III, New Delhi. AAACG2365F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Arvind Kumar, Advocate Revenue by Sh. S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 26.07.2018 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 25/05/2015 in appeal No. 36/13-14/CITA-4 on the file of the Learned Commissioner o…

Smt. Suman Mahajan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2706/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt Beena A Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Suman Mahajan Vs. Acit 10872, Jhandewalan Road Circle-39(1) Nabi Karim New Delhi New Delhi 110 055 Pan: Ahopm3933F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 143

…see also submitted before Ld.CIT (A) that she has a capital of Rs.83.63 Lacs against interest-free advance of Rs.56.17 lakhs. By placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340, assessee submitted that there was sufficient funds available which were free of interest and therefore it could not be presumed that assessee had advanced loans from interest-bearing funds. 9.4. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that the assessee has advanced interest-free loans to her husband and sister concern and therefore Assessing Officer has rightly comp…

Crescent Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 240/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Cresent Trading Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Mandhana Manor, 45, Wing-‘C’, 3(3), Mumbai. बिधम/ Mogul Lane, Matunga Road Vs. (West), Mumbai 400 016. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcc6898A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Farrok Irani & Mitesh Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) in respect of the interest expenditure was liable to be made. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay : (i) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) (ii) CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) It was further averred by the Ld. A.R that the lower authorities had erred in failing to appreciate that the disallowance under Sec. 14A cannot exceed the M/s Cresent Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 3(3) – A.Y. 2012-13 5 amount of exempt income. In support of his aforesaid contention the Ld.…

Jaya Hospitalas, Warangal, Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, Warangal Range, Warangal

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

ITA 202/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40

…see has sufficiently enough funds to advance the HUF, Assessing Officer cannot disallow any amount out of the interest paid and used for the business. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) will apply. Assessing Officer is directed to examine whether any of the borrowed funds are diverted for non- business purposes and in case the assessee has used the borrowed funds for the business purposes, no amount can be disallowed out of the claim made by the assessee. We make it clear that the allowance of interest on the partner’s…

ACIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7485/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhcentral Bank Of India D C I T - 2(1)(2) 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent Ac I T - 2(1)(2) Central Bank Of India Room No. 562, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyarFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja

Section 1Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 211Section 36(1)

…isallowance is called for on account of interest vide Rule 8D(2)(ii) of IT Rules, 1962. In this regard, he relied on various decisions including that of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340, with which we agree. Regarding the disallowance out of administrative expenses, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that disallowance of a reasonable percentage of the exempt income is an accepted method of quantifying the disallowance of expenses for the AYs prior to AY 2008-2009, the year of amendment to Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. In this re…

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyarFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja

Section 1Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 211Section 36(1)

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Bharat Glass Tube Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1816/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1816/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

…serve which works out to Rs.25,20,44,978/-. Thus, assessee submitted that assessee has sufficient interest free funds for advancing the above sum. Assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340. He further submitted that the CIT(A) has deleted the interest disallowance for the A.Y. 2009- 3 M/s. Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. 10. However, rejecting the explanation given by the assessee the AO made interest disallowance at Rs.73,14,401/- (@12% on the interest free funds). 4. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) deleted the interes…

M/S. Sunnygold Wineries Private Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 703/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT DR

Section 38

…these arguments of the Ld. A.R. for the assessee are reasonable. The settled legal proposition relating to presumption of investment out of the interest free funds as highlighted in the various judgments i.e. CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported as 313 ITR 340 and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] reported as 366 ITR 505 (Bom) shall help the assessee on the argument raised above. Further, we also find calculating the disallowable interest on the yearly basis is not a correct approach of the AO as the loan/advance is given for the part of previous year too. In that case, the number of months or days beco…

Nayan T. Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1005/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Nayan T Shah, Dcit, Flat No.501, 5Th Floor, Circle-23(3), बनाम/ Rajyog Residency, (Now Dcit Circle-29(2), Vs. Near Vardhman Nagar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Dr. R.P. Road, Bandra (East), Mulund (West), Mumbai Mumbai-400080 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aahps3290B

Section 144Section 41(1)Section 44A

…8. Thus, as per ld. AR, the loans of Rs.4.45 crores as on 31.3.2007 and Rs.3 crores as on 31.3.2008 were given out of interest free funds. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 340/178 Taxman 135, the ld. AR submitted that if interest free funds and interest bearing funds were both available, then a presumption would arise that loans were first given out of interest free funds. Reliance was also placed in the case of KBD Sugars & Distilleries Ltd. v. ACIT, IT Appeal Nos. 1362 & 1363(Bang.) of 2011 dated 22.11.2013. 10. Per…

DCIT 6(1), Mumbai vs. Aqdas Maritime Agency P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result these grounds of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 1559/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Asst.Cit, Circle-(6)(1) Mumbai. Ltd. 32/33, Eastern Chamber, 4Th Floor, Nandlal Jani Marg, Vs. Poona Street, Mumbai-400009 Pan:Aaeca8490K (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst.Cit, Circle-(6)(1) M/S Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Mumbai. Ltd. 32/33, Eastern Chamber, 4Th Floor, Nandlal Jani Marg, Vs. Poona Street, Mumbai-400009 Pan:Aaeca8490K (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.113/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year- 2009-10) M/S Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Asst.Cit, Circle-(6)(1) Ltd. 32/33, Eastern Chamber, Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Nandlal Jani Marg, Vs. Poona Street, Mumbai-400009 Pan:Aaeca8490K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Sanjay Jain (Ar) Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena & Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Set Of Two Appeals By Both The Parties & Cross Objection By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-

For Appellant: Mrs. Prakash Jhunjhunwala &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena & Rajesh

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

…rplus funds and interest disallowance was not justified, which was rightly appreciated by ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In support of his submission the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Reliance Utilities ltd.(313 ITR 340 Bom). 30. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessing officer while during the assessment noted that the assessee has outstanding secured loan of Rs. 20.62 Crores, has proportionately activated to the interest to the working progress of the assessee and made the prop…