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.

Major Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

ITA 2153/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.2153/M/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Major Brands (India) Pvt. Vs. Acit-5(2), Mumbai Ltd. 401,Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Aayakarbhavan,M.K. Road,Andheri(East), Mumbai- Road,Mumbai-400020. 400059. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm 4949 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Paras S.Savla, Ar Respondent By :Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Paras S.Savla, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Therefore, the presumption is that the assessee must have made the investments out of its own capital and, therefore, disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) is not required. We rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Limited (2016) 67 taxmann.com 42(Bom. HC) wherein it was held that assessee has invested its own interest free funds for making investments, therefore, no addition u/r 8D(2)(ii) is required. However, we note that so far disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) is concerned it is applicable to the assessee’s case under consideration as the…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blea.C.I.T. Cc – 8(4) V. M/S. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No: Aaacs 7934 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiv PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Purushotham Kumar
Section 80I

…e not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The matter 19 M/s. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. when reached before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505] held that since reserves and surplus available to assessee far exceeded the total investments made in shares/mutual funds in the beginning of the year as well as at the end of the year, no disallowance of interest under Clause (ii) of Rule 8D2 is called for. 15. Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Ass…

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hindusthan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1601/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…be safely concluded that all the investments were made only out of own funds of the assessee by placing reliance on the following decisions of various High Courts: i) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Power Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom); ii) HDFC Bank reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom); We find that own funds available in the form of capital and reserves and surplus were Rs. 15769.49 lacs and whereas the investments in mutual funds were only Rs. 43.81 lacs as on 31.03.2010. The net profit earned during the year and available for appropriation was Rs. 1736.90 lacs. These facts…

Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1410/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…be safely concluded that all the investments were made only out of own funds of the assessee by placing reliance on the following decisions of various High Courts: i) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Power Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom); ii) HDFC Bank reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom); We find that own funds available in the form of capital and reserves and surplus were Rs. 15769.49 lacs and whereas the investments in mutual funds were only Rs. 43.81 lacs as on 31.03.2010. The net profit earned during the year and available for appropriation was Rs. 1736.90 lacs. These facts…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5269/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mayur Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND G. MANJUNATHA, AM Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of SV Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, CC-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAACP2567L The Dy. Commissioner of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, CC-3(4),Room SV Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Mayur Kisnadwala, AR Revenue by…

Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 4992/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mayur Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND G. MANJUNATHA, AM Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of SV Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, CC-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAACP2567L The Dy. Commissioner of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, CC-3(4),Room SV Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Mayur Kisnadwala, AR Revenue by…

Vakkash Capital Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4919/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vakkash Capital Co. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-14(3)(1), Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, 141, Mittal Tower, Vs. C Wing, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan: Aaccv 0990R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Haria, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…erved up to 31.03.2012. The assessee had sufficing own fund available to utilise for the purpose of investment. Therefore, I am of the view that as per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.” (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) wherein it is held that if interest free funds available with the assessee are more than investment it would have to be presumed that investments have been made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. I also find that similar case has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Binani Industries Ltd. in ITA No.144/K…

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Infrastructure Finance Co.Lt, Mumbai

ITA 4331/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 4331/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S L & T Infrastructure Income Tax-14(2)(1), Finance Co. Ltd. 3-B, Laxmi बिधम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Towers, 2Nd Floor, Bandra Vs. 400 020 Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcl2283L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Ranjan, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14A

…d, the submission of Mr Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee, that this issue is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) is well founded. The facts of that case were that the Assessee viz. M/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. had invested certain amounts in Reliance Gas Ltd. and Reliance Strategic Investments Ltd. It was the case of the Assessee that they themselves were in the business of generation of power and they had earned regular business income there…

M/S. Lmj Business Centre (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1619/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1618&1619/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shital Khemka, FCA & Smt. Arti Debnath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. CIT

…the total funds availability i.e. interest free fund of Rs.l.39 cr. is more than the loan given to its sister concerns at Rs.1.60 cr. and hence, following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Powers Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Born.) as well as the decision of Kolkata ITAT 3rd Member in the case of S. P. Jaiswal Estate reported in 147 TTJ 649 there cannot be any disallowance. We find that the loan given to sister concern is less than the interest free fund available with the assessee and accordingly, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of H…

M/S. Lmj Business Centre (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1618/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1618&1619/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shital Khemka, FCA & Smt. Arti Debnath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. CIT

…the total funds availability i.e. interest free fund of Rs.l.39 cr. is more than the loan given to its sister concerns at Rs.1.60 cr. and hence, following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Powers Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Born.) as well as the decision of Kolkata ITAT 3rd Member in the case of S. P. Jaiswal Estate reported in 147 TTJ 649 there cannot be any disallowance. We find that the loan given to sister concern is less than the interest free fund available with the assessee and accordingly, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of H…

Tata Investment Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1509/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tata Investment Corporation Acit-2(3) Ltd. Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Vs. Elphistone Building, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 10, Veer Nariman Road, Road Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaact4120F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.M. Golvala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. M.M. Golvala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…f Rs.1,63,968.62 lacs which exceed total investment of Rs.1,29,088.44 lacs. In HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra), 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…

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ground of appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2483/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sbi Capital Markets Ltd. Addl.Cit Ltu, 202, Maker Tower E, Cuff 29Th Floor Centre-I, Vs. Parade, World Trade Centre, Mumbai-400005 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacs7914E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajnikant V. Chaniyari, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rajnikant V. Chaniyari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…pment Corpn. Ltd. [2016] 65 taxmann.com 295 (Karnataka), (iii) Integrated Coal SBI Capital Markets Ltd. 5 ITA No 2483/Mum/2012 & ITA No. 4064/Mum/2013 Mining Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 260 (Kolkata), (iv) CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom. HC), (v) Oswal Industries v. ACIT (2000) 109 Taxman 279 (Mum. ITAT), (vi) Maruti Udyog Ltd. (92 ITD 119) (Del. ITAT), (vii)Hero Cycles Ltd. (323 ITR 518) (P&H HC) and (viii)Bunge Agribusiness (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 132 ITD 549 (Mumbai ITAT). 5.3 The Ld. counsel finally submits that strategic investments should be excluded while calculati…

Inidra Industries, Ranipet vs. ACIT Circle 1, Vellore

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

ITA 2030/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2030/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Indira Industries -Vs- Acit, Circle-I, Vellore [Pan: Aaafi 2440 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…trued as own funds available with the assessee as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Hotel Savera reported in 239 ITR 795 (Mad) and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 7 Indira Industries A.Yr. 2013-14 6.3. We hold that the bank charges, bank guarantee charges, LC charges and valuation charges paid in the sum of Rs 21,46,275/- has got nothing to do with the amounts overdrawn by one of the partners. These charges are to be incurred in the ordinary course of its business and are payable irrespective of th…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Garden Court Distilleries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4784/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledcit-9(3)(2) V. M/S. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Unit No. 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Raheja Plaza, Off. Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT-9(3)(2) v. M/s. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 418, 4th Floor, Unit No. 303/304, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Raheja Plaza, Off. Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 PAN NO: AAACG 1457 C (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O NO.324/MUM/2017 [Arising Out of ITA NO.4784/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2012-13)] M/s. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT-9(3)(2) Unit No. 303/304, 3rd Floor, Room No. 418, 4th Floor, Ra…

Revashankar Gems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1046/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Revashankar Gems Limited V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 322, Panchratna, 14, Range 5(3), R.No. 573, 5Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mama Parmanand Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Opera House, Mumbai 400 004

For Appellant: Shri Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…n of the assessee that, if adequate interest free funds are available then no disallowance needed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505] and CIT v. Reliance Utilities Power Limited [313 ITR 340] and the matter was set-aside. He also further submitted that the Assessing Officer passed order giving effect to the Tribunal order for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010- 11 accepting that the interest free funds are much more than the investments and no disallowance was made towards interest under Rule 8D2(ii). Learned Counsel for the asses…

M/S Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1433/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Bhattacharyya, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 14A

…vestments in shares were only to the tune of Rs.1 crore whereas the assessee’s capital and reserves were more than Rs.,7.57 crores. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Limited 313 ITR 340 (Bom) wherein it was held that if interest free funds available with the assessee was sufficient to meet the investments and at the same time if loans have been raised by the assessee it can be presumed that the investments were from interest free funds and no disallowance of interest is called for. The assessee also relied on similar ruling of t…

Wadhwagroup Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6357/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner Of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, Central Circle- Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd बिधम/ 5(4), Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Platina, Plot C-59, G Floor, Air India Building. Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Nariman Point Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…able to be allocated and resultantly disallowed for earning of the tax free income. The assessee in support of its aforesaid contention relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The assessee further submitted before the A.O that as the investments in the shares of its wholly owned subsidiaries/associate companies were made with the purpose of having strategic control in the said companies, therefore, no disallowance under Sec. 14A in respect of the said strategic…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhawan Group Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6268/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner Of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, Central Circle- Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd बिधम/ 5(4), Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Platina, Plot C-59, G Floor, Air India Building. Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Nariman Point Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…able to be allocated and resultantly disallowed for earning of the tax free income. The assessee in support of its aforesaid contention relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The assessee further submitted before the A.O that as the investments in the shares of its wholly owned subsidiaries/associate companies were made with the purpose of having strategic control in the said companies, therefore, no disallowance under Sec. 14A in respect of the said strategic…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gcil Fianance Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5686/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Gcil Finance Ltd. बिधम/ Tax-1(1)(2), 579 209-210, Arcadia Bldg, Aayakar Bhavan, 195, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadcg0600Q (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.R
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…took support of the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CCI Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (2012) 250 CTR 291 (Kar) (ii) DCIT Vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd. (ITA No. 6711/Mum/2011). (iii) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). However, the A.O after deliberating on the submissions of the assessee did not find favour with the same by observing as under: “1. The assessee has made an assumption that only the investments made in shares earn exempt income. The assesse e in AY under consideration has earned a dividend income of Rs. 17,32,724/- from Mutual Funds and t…

Firstsource Solutions Ltd ( Formerly Known As Icici Onesource Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2658/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 154

…ctively. The amount of investment made in subsidiaries stood at Rs.9595.23 lakhs and 15767.42 lakhs respectively as on 31.3.2003 and 31.3.2004. Hence, as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & power (313 ITR 340), the presumption shall be that the assessee has used only its own funds for making investments. Further, the assessee has also contended that the subsidiary companies are also engaged in the similar line 3 M/s. Firstsource Solutions Limited of business as that of the assessee. Accordingly it was contended, by placing reliance on the decision r…