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 367,368 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 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 8DSection 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

interest free advancesdisallowance of interest expendituresection 36(1)(iii)disallowance under section 14acommercial expediencydisallowance u/s 14asection 14abook profitssection 115jsection 36(1)section 36section 115jb

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana vs. M/S Mrs.Bectors Food Specilties Ltd, Ludhiana

ITA 555/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…08/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09 In this case the Hon'ble High Court upheld the disallowance of interest expenditure computed as per rule 8D(2)(ii) for mixed funds. The Hon'ble High Court distinguished the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Reliance utilities (313 ITR 340) and Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Hero Cycles (323 ITR 528) for the proposition that when interest free funds are available with the assessee then it will be presumed that such funds have been invested in various investment. The relevant extract of the judgement is as under: "Learned counsel for the appellant refers to Bombay High Court…

ACIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

ITA 405/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…08/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09 In this case the Hon'ble High Court upheld the disallowance of interest expenditure computed as per rule 8D(2)(ii) for mixed funds. The Hon'ble High Court distinguished the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Reliance utilities (313 ITR 340) and Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Hero Cycles (323 ITR 528) for the proposition that when interest free funds are available with the assessee then it will be presumed that such funds have been invested in various investment. The relevant extract of the judgement is as under: "Learned counsel for the appellant refers to Bombay High Court…

Shanakar Packagings Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 3951/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3951/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 4

…specific borrowings done towards the said advances, it must be presumed that the same have been given from interest free funds. Ld. AR in order to support his stand also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Reliance Utilities Ltd, 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Ltd, 366 ITR 505. Ld. AR further submitted that advances during the year were only Rs. 30,823/- and the rest was advanced in the past and therefore, in such circumstances, if at all the disallowance has to be made, it should have been restricted to the advances given during the assessment year in question. It was further submitted by Ld.…

Jaymin Ramji Maheshwari, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer

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

ITA 2739/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Subodh L. RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

…terest expenditure of Rs.11,07,656/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same without going into the settled legal proposition on the issue of presumption as laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilties & Power Ltd. reported as 313 ITR 340. 3 A.Y.2012-13 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) dutifully. 5. After hearing both the parties, on the issue of disallowance of interest on unsecured loans of Rs.11,07,656/-, I find the order of CIT(A) is defective/ not a speaking order to the extent of ignoring the relevant lega…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 EIH Ltd V/s. DCIT, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [PAN No.AAACE 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, AR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahm…

Progressive Homes, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5082/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Progressive Homes Acit, Circle-4(4) 707, Devavrata Sector 17, Cgo Building M.K. Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbi-400703 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahfm5228J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajiv Waglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Waglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)Section 24

…in mutual funds to the tune of Rs.51,45,000/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT v. 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…

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 6298/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

…747/MUM/2011 ITA.No. 6298 & 2626/MUM/2012 M/s. S.P. Corporation much more than the investments made and therefore no part of the interest is disallowable in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505]. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in so far as the disallowance under Rule 8D 2(iii) it was submitted that no expenditure is allocable to attain of exempt dividend income; and in any event the disallowance computed at ₹. 2,88,542/- is arbitrary and grossly excessive. 85. Ld. DR supported the…

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.RG.11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 2626/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

…747/MUM/2011 ITA.No. 6298 & 2626/MUM/2012 M/s. S.P. Corporation much more than the investments made and therefore no part of the interest is disallowable in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505]. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in so far as the disallowance under Rule 8D 2(iii) it was submitted that no expenditure is allocable to attain of exempt dividend income; and in any event the disallowance computed at ₹. 2,88,542/- is arbitrary and grossly excessive. 85. Ld. DR supported the…

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 6857/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

…747/MUM/2011 ITA.No. 6298 & 2626/MUM/2012 M/s. S.P. Corporation much more than the investments made and therefore no part of the interest is disallowable in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505]. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in so far as the disallowance under Rule 8D 2(iii) it was submitted that no expenditure is allocable to attain of exempt dividend income; and in any event the disallowance computed at ₹. 2,88,542/- is arbitrary and grossly excessive. 85. Ld. DR supported the…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. S.P. Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 2747/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

…747/MUM/2011 ITA.No. 6298 & 2626/MUM/2012 M/s. S.P. Corporation much more than the investments made and therefore no part of the interest is disallowable in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505]. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in so far as the disallowance under Rule 8D 2(iii) it was submitted that no expenditure is allocable to attain of exempt dividend income; and in any event the disallowance computed at ₹. 2,88,542/- is arbitrary and grossly excessive. 85. Ld. DR supported the…

S.P Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 2596/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

…747/MUM/2011 ITA.No. 6298 & 2626/MUM/2012 M/s. S.P. Corporation much more than the investments made and therefore no part of the interest is disallowable in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505]. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in so far as the disallowance under Rule 8D 2(iii) it was submitted that no expenditure is allocable to attain of exempt dividend income; and in any event the disallowance computed at ₹. 2,88,542/- is arbitrary and grossly excessive. 85. Ld. DR supported the…

S.P Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 2595/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

…747/MUM/2011 ITA.No. 6298 & 2626/MUM/2012 M/s. S.P. Corporation much more than the investments made and therefore no part of the interest is disallowable in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505]. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in so far as the disallowance under Rule 8D 2(iii) it was submitted that no expenditure is allocable to attain of exempt dividend income; and in any event the disallowance computed at ₹. 2,88,542/- is arbitrary and grossly excessive. 85. Ld. DR supported the…

S.P Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 2594/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

…747/MUM/2011 ITA.No. 6298 & 2626/MUM/2012 M/s. S.P. Corporation much more than the investments made and therefore no part of the interest is disallowable in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505]. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in so far as the disallowance under Rule 8D 2(iii) it was submitted that no expenditure is allocable to attain of exempt dividend income; and in any event the disallowance computed at ₹. 2,88,542/- is arbitrary and grossly excessive. 85. Ld. DR supported the…

Nahar Poly Films Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1340/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Laganpreet Sandhu, Sr.DR
Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Nahar Poly Films Ltd., Vs. The ACIT, Circle-7, 376 Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana Ludhiana PAN No. AAACN5708K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Navdeep Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Laganpreet Sandhu, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 11.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.09.2016 of the Commissioner of…

DCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 14A

…unds which include its own funds in sufficient quantity and, therefore, presumption is that its own funds were utilized in the investments can be drawn by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Powers Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the proportionate interest disallowance of Rs.53,78,818/-. We note that this specific action of the Ld. CIT(A) has not been appealed against by the Revenue in the appeal before us. Therefore, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) crystallizes on this issue. Coming to the main grievance of the revenue t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shraddha Constructions & Power Generation Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 461/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 132Section 132(4)

…of interest on part borrowed capital, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable as the said decision has the backing of the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 and CIT Vs. HDFC Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505. Thus, the decision given by the CIT(A) stands confirmed. Thus, Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” 12. Considering the above settled nature of the issues in the assessee’s own case, we dismiss the ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue. 9. Since the grounds raised by the Reve…

Goldseal Engineering Products P.Ltd Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 6259/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6259/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S. Gold Seal Engineering बिाम/ Acit 15(1)(2), Mumbai Products P. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Gold Seal House, V. Village Road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1492R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Firoze AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 38

…ption will apply that the assessee invested own funds for making investments. The assessee relied upon decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited(Supra) and decision in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Limited v. CIT (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom). It was also submitted that the entire disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed exempt income which was to the tune of 2,800/- being dividend received which was claimed as an exempt income u/s 10(34). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon following decisions to contend that disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed an exempt income : a. Maxopp I…

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5946/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5946/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri PRV RaghvanFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n funds towards these interest free advances and investments in subsidiary companies and no disallowance of interest is warranted. The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom.) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Limited v. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.). It was submitted that the Revenue has not come in appeal against the appellate order of learned CIT(A) for AY 2007-08. It was submitted that there is an increase in fixed assets from Rs. 49.37 crores as at 31-03-2011 to Rs. 65.14 crores as at 31…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-35, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 182/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta V/S. Acit, Circle-35, Aayakar 7, Lyons Range, 2Nd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Room No. 2A, Kolkata-001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Adqpm 0469 E] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri P.J. Bhide, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata U/S 263/154/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 26.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11 & Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Invoking The Provision Of Section 14A Of The Act. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.94,89,504/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S. 14A Of The Act. 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, Erred In Holding That

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

…usal of the balance sheet, we find that the assessee has sufficient own funds to make the investments and hence the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) is correct. However, in the instant case, the assessee had voluntarily disallowed Rs.21,29,607 by applying all the three limbs of Rule 8D. Hence we are not inclined to get into the availability of own funds as far as applicability of Rule 8D(2)(ii) in the instant case. 9.1. Now, we are left only with the legal ground wherein whether the rev…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Champion Commercial Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1421/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Champion P-7, Chowringhee Commercial Co. Ltd., Square, 3Rd Floor, P-15, Cit Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-73 [Pan No.Aabcc 2373 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “I. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,50,938/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Overrule The Judicial Pronouncement Of Cit Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited (1951) (191) Itr (Sc) Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.13,91,404/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The It Act, 1961. Iii. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.20,25,329/- On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 44A

…erefore no disallowance on account of interest expense should be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of IT Rules. In holding so, we draw our 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.…