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 367,368 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 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.

Asst CIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kiran Gems P. Ld, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 1108/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B. SriniwasFor Respondent: Shri R. Murlidhar &

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…rgy was made out of its own funds or interest free funds. l(c). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (313 ITR 340) was given in the context of investments made in sister concerns and the presumption of interest free funds being available with the assessee for investment in property would not apply. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to allow deduction of the amount of Rs. 29,42,23,853/- being am…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Incite Homecare Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 896/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sudhir Sehgal

Section 36Section 43(1)Section 69

…ropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. V CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H) wherein considering the principle of law as laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) the view taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was followed. Thus the legal position that if there are interest free funds available, presumption would be that investment would be made out of the interest free funds available or generated in the business by the company is no longer res-integra. Reference may also be made to another decisio…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co, . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6055/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar with MsFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…llowance under Rule 8D(ii) is warranted in support of his submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT 383 ITR 529) (Bombay High Court) and CIT Vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340 (B)]. In other alternative submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the disallowance under section 14A should not be restricted to exempt income. The assessee earned exempt income of Rs. Ms Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. 28,000/- only. Therefore, the disallowance under section 14A should not exceed to exempt income. In support of its…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar with MsFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 86/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos.409/Coch/2014 and 85 & 86/Coch/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Liberty Marketers, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 44/356,Liberty Towers, Income-tax, Circle-2(2), Kochi. Manapatti Parambu Road, Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 017. [PAN:AABFL 6579Q] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil D. Nair, Adv. Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 02/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 03/04/2018 O R D E R Per Bench: These…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 85/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

M/S.Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 409/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6257/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…Rs.449.67 crores during the relevant period. 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…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avendus Captail P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3475/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…oticing that own funds of the assessee, i.e., Share Capital and Reserves was much more than the investments in question and, therefore, following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), it was to be presumed that the investments which have yielded exempt income are out of such non-interest bearing funds. The CIT(A) also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd, 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and found it expedient to delete the disallowance. Against such a decision, Revenue is in ap…

Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1828/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1828/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, 1St Floor, Alankar Cinema Building, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aabca5142M Vs.

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl.CIT

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

…le with the assessee comprised of share capital of ₹ 5 lakhs and Reserves & Surplus of ₹ 27.48 crores, which was much more than funds invested. Relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), the assessee stated that no disallowance is to be made out of interest expenditure. Further, the assessee also relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No.117/2015, judgment dated 25.02.2015 for the proposition that at best the disallowance under section 14A of the Act i…

Cogent Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4419/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Cogent Jewellery Private The Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, 6, Vaibhav, Janki Income Tax, Circle – 6(2), Kutir, Juhu Church Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Rom Vs. Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 No.504, 5Th Floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacc1579M

For Appellant: Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, DR

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

…est free funds or interest bearing funds are invested in the interest free advances given by the assessee. Needless to say, in case the AO is not able to prove the nexus, the issue is covered by the decision of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) wherein, it is held that if there were funds available both interest free & interest bearing mixed funds and overdraft and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest-free funds generated or available with the company, if the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the advances given by a…

Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4269/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Icici Securities Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Income Tax Range Vs. Marg, Churchgate, 4(1), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…s the investments were of Rs.738,959,000/-. In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. 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…

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd ( Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT RG 6(3)

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 212/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Dcit, Range 6(3) (Erstwhile Known As Room No. 576, Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 6(2) (Erstwhile Known As Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Marg, Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Arati Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2018

For Appellant: Mrs. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR

Section 143(3)

…H.O. assets to the exempt income. 5.3 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the appellant had sufficient own funds and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified. Reliance is placed by her on the decision in Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 340 (Bom), HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Ld. counsel further refers to the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the AY 1999-2000 to AY 2003-04. 5.4 On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We are concerned here with the assessm…

ACIT, Cir-31, Kolkata vs. Smt Shyama Devi Dalmia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 429/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 429/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit Cir 31 Kolkata..............................………………………………….......................Appellant 10B, Middleton Row, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071 Smt. Shyama Devi Dalmia...……………………………………………………............Respondent 5, Ajc Bose Road,, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Agbpd 5911 E] Appearances By: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Sr. Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 9, Kolkata Dated 31.12.2015 Whereby He Deleted The Addition Of Rs. 53,46,249/- Made By The A.O. By Way Of Disallowance Of Interest.

Section 143(3)

…l/2010 vide order dated 24th day of April 2014 confirmed the deletion in favour of the Appellant Assessee. The reliance in the case was placed on Munjal Sales Corporation v CIT & Another [2008] 298 ITR 298 (SC) and CIT v Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Since the case of the Appellant Assessee for addition of Rs.53,46,249/- towards payment of interest on Loan taken on fixed deposits from The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. is squarely covered and settled in earlier year, the addition made by the Ld. A.O. is bad in law and we request your honour to provide relief to the Appellant Assessee accordingl…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7797/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

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

…icular income or receipt. To determine these issues, one would have to be guided by the provisions of the Act and various judicial pronouncements, having regard to facts available on record. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340 has laid down the principle that where the own funds are in excess of investments made, there would be a presumption that the investments have been made out of the own funds. The natural corollary of this principle would be that the borrowed funds would be presumed to have been utilized for the purposes of business carried on by an assessee, in c…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1951/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1951/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. Cit-1(1)(1), M/S. Bennet Coleman & Company Ltd. बनाम/ 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Times Of India Bldg., M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4373 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Venkatraman ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. P. Meena

For Appellant: Shri S. VenkatramanFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena

Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 2(33)

…nces, the facts go to show that only own funds have been deployed by the Appellant company in making investments to earn tax-free income. The Ld. A.R, has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and CIT 6 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Bennet Coleman & Company Ltd. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505] to argue that no disallowance of interest expense on borrowings is warranted when own funds have only been used to make investments on which tax free income was earned. 5.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR…

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Apollo Logisolutions Ltd, Raigad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1880/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Dcit 15(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Apollo Logisolutions Ltd., R.No.470, 4Th Floor Survey No.59, Aayakar Bhavan, Kon Savia Rasayami Road M.K.Road Somahane Mumbai – 400 020 Panvel, Raigad Pan/Gir No. Aaecs1502L Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri V.Vidyadhar Assessee By Shri Madhur Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…r material on record and was not controverted by Department by bringing any positive material on record. Applying the proposition of law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), we are inclined to agree with the learned AR Mr. Madhur Agarwal that CIT(A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 07/03/2018 (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 07/03/2018 Karuna Sr.PS 4 M/s. Apollo Logisolutions Ltd.,…

Shree Madhur Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Dhule vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1530/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.R. ShirudeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Assessing Officer had not recorded his dis-satisfaction of claim of assessee that no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income and in view of decisions of jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Powers Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT V/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 107 DTR (Bom) 140 to the effect that whenever funds are available both interest free and over draft and I or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments are out of interest free funds available with assessee which are sufficient to meet the investment and in view of the decision of jurisdi…

Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Jalgaon vs. Dy. CIT, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1070/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 28Section 36Section 37

…excess of the deposits given, then it is presumed that the amount of deposits given are out of interest free funds and for this proposition, he relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom). He also placed reliance on the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Trinity India Limited in ITA No.666/PN/2012 order dt.28.08.2013. He therefore submitted that no disallowance of interest on notional basis is called for in the present case and therefore the addition made by the AO be deleted. Ld DR on the other hand took us throug…

DCIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2817/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

For Appellant: Farrokh V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: B. Sriniwas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Objection is squarely covered in favour of the Cross Objector by the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd v/s DCIT 383 ITR 529 (Born) and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Limited 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 8. The Cross Objector inadvertently and under a bona fide belief did not file Cross Objections even Cross Objection No. 38/Mum/2018 though it had taken a ground before CIT(A) that no disallowance u/s 14A should be made following the law laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (supra) & Reliance Utilities Ltd (supra…