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.

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 340)

Saryu Properties and Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5675/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 5675 & 5676/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13&2013-14)

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Kumar Ramani /VinayFor Respondent: Sh. M. V. Rajguru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the firm. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the following decisions on the point of Jurisdictional High Court: M/s Saryu Properties & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. a) CIT vs. I-IDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (BOM) b) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power 313 ITR 340 (BOM) c) HDFC vs. DCIT 383 ITR 529 (BOM) 4. The learned CIT (A)erred in not taking into account following decisions holding that disallowance u/s 14(a)cannot exceed exempted income i) DAGA Global Chemicals vs ACIT-ITA No. 5592/M/12 dated 02.02.20 13 ii) Sahara India Fin. Corp. vs DCIT (2014)-105 DTR I (DEL) iii) CIT vs GL!jaratNarmade Valley…

Shri Yogendra Khandelwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 4

ITA 906/JPR/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev SoganiFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Verma (Addl. CIT)

Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80E

…the assessee is higher than interest free loan/advance given, it shall be presumed that interest free loan is given out of own funds. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340 and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [2014] 221 Taxman 479. 48. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Undisputedly, the interest free funds available with the assessee is far in excess of amount advanced to Arpan Infin (P) ltd. Further, t…

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Prs Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 450/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Sainia.Y 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri David Z.Chawngthu, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Loyalka, FCA, ld.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43B

…made. For this proposition, the assessee relied on following case laws:- CIT Vs. Kajal Export (2014) 362 ITR 328 (Guj.) CIT Vs. Vijaywada Bottling Co. Ltd 356 ITR 625(AP) CIT Vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd 354 ITR 222(Guj) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340(Bom) CIT Vs. Prem Heavy Engnrs Works P.Ltd 285 ITR 554(All) D & H Secheron Electrodies P.Ltd 142 ITR 528(MP) CIT Vs. Gopikrishna Murlidhar 47 ITR 469 (AP) Regal Theatre Vs. CIT 225 ITR 205(Del) 247 ITR 510(Gau) 16. After considering the above the CIT-A held that the ratio of the cited case laws are found to be squarely applicable to the facts o…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Feegrade & Company Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1654/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 37(1)Section 73

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘D’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM ] Assessment Year : 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(3) -versus- M/s Feegrade & Company Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AAACF 6825 D) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT For the Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing : 03.01.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2018. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 23.05.2016 of C.I.T- (A)-20, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2013-14. 2. Ground no.1 ra…

DCIT, CC-193, Kolkata vs. M/S Rungta Sons Private Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 37(1)Section 73

…mixed funds, it is a settled law that if mixed funds are available, it should be presumed that investment in shares is made out of own funds. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay HC in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (ITA 330 of 2012). As per decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) if share capital and reserves are available along with borrowed capital, a presumption can be made that investment in shares have been made from own funds. Relevant extract of the decision is as follows : 'In the present case, undisputedly the Asse…

K.Badal Bai L/H of Late Sri A.Kewalchand, Gudiyatham vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed/ treated as allowed

ITA 1688/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mrs. Ann Mary Baby, JCIT

Section 14ASection 40A(3)

…the sale of the said assets will yield only taxable income and no nexus has been established between borrowed fund and investment with regard to immovable property, shares, gold jewellery and diamond. Relied CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Born), wherein it has been held that if funds are available both interest-free 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 investments. The High Court concurred with the…

Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 3537/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkataraman, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…as how the claim of disallowance of Rs.1,18,11,210/- made by the assessee at the time of filing the return was incorrect. The Ld. A.R. has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.” (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Moreover, the Ld. A.R. has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505. Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the appeal may be allowed. 5. The Ld. D.R relied heavily on the orders of authorities below. It was submitted that since the AO has rightly observed that part of…

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 3298/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkataraman, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…as how the claim of disallowance of Rs.1,18,11,210/- made by the assessee at the time of filing the return was incorrect. The Ld. A.R. has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.” (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Moreover, the Ld. A.R. has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505. Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the appeal may be allowed. 5. The Ld. D.R relied heavily on the orders of authorities below. It was submitted that since the AO has rightly observed that part of…

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 305/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…r the ratio laid down in the following decisions :- a) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd reported in 280 ITR 525 (Cal) b) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 6 ITA Nos.301-302 &304-305/Kol/2016 M/s Rydak Syndicate Ltd. A.Yrs. 93-94,01-02,11-12&12-13 In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid decisions , we have no hesitation in deleting the disallowance of interest on proportionate basis in the sum of Rs 3,09,095/- . Accordingly, the Ground No…

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 304/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…r the ratio laid down in the following decisions :- a) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd reported in 280 ITR 525 (Cal) b) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 6 ITA Nos.301-302 &304-305/Kol/2016 M/s Rydak Syndicate Ltd. A.Yrs. 93-94,01-02,11-12&12-13 In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid decisions , we have no hesitation in deleting the disallowance of interest on proportionate basis in the sum of Rs 3,09,095/- . Accordingly, the Ground No…

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Spl. RG-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 302/KOL/2016[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…r the ratio laid down in the following decisions :- a) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd reported in 280 ITR 525 (Cal) b) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 6 ITA Nos.301-302 &304-305/Kol/2016 M/s Rydak Syndicate Ltd. A.Yrs. 93-94,01-02,11-12&12-13 In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid decisions , we have no hesitation in deleting the disallowance of interest on proportionate basis in the sum of Rs 3,09,095/- . Accordingly, the Ground No…

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Spl. RG-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 301/KOL/2016[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 1993-94

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…r the ratio laid down in the following decisions :- a) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd reported in 280 ITR 525 (Cal) b) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 6 ITA Nos.301-302 &304-305/Kol/2016 M/s Rydak Syndicate Ltd. A.Yrs. 93-94,01-02,11-12&12-13 In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid decisions , we have no hesitation in deleting the disallowance of interest on proportionate basis in the sum of Rs 3,09,095/- . Accordingly, the Ground No…

Jks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 241/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 14A

…n 31.03.2010 and Rs.7,34,04,364/- as on 31.03.2009, thus, the assessee’s own funds far exceeded the investment made to earn exempt income. Thus applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utility & Powers Ltd. Vs. (2009) CIT 313 ITR 340 (Bom) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that where the assessee is possessed of mixed funds which include its own fund in sufficient quantity, then a presumption that its own funds were utilized for the advances is to be drawn. Therefore, looking from any of these angles, we find force in the contention of the assessee that no disallowance…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mstc Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1303/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Mstc Limited [Pan: Aaccm 0021 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nicholus Murmu, Addl.CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J.L.Raha, CA

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ciated these facts based on the fund flow statement indicating the source of investment filed by the assessee and placing reliance of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in 2 3 M/s MSTC Limited A.Yr.2011-12 the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Limited reported in 313 ITR 340 deleted the disallowance made in the sum of Rs. 34,06,067/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. 5. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds: 01. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3406067/- u/s 14A of the IT Act, 1961 r.w.…

M/S. Sunil Kumar Kundu, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Siliguri, Sirliguri

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1566/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 1564 To 1566/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Snehangshu Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 36(1)(iii)

…hat the sundry creditors were interest free funds which should be considered as available for utilization by the assesse. In this regard the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (BOM) "If there be interest-free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investments 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. The principle therefore would 3 A.Yr.2012-13 to 2014-15 be that if there are funds available both interest-free…

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…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. 10 A.Yrs. 2010-11to2012-13 9.1. Now, we are left only with the legal g…

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 634/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…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. 10 A.Yrs. 2010-11to2012-13 9.1. Now, we are left only with the legal g…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-35, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 310/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…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. 10 A.Yrs. 2010-11to2012-13 9.1. Now, we are left only with the legal g…

Anand Rathi Capital Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7543/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7543, 7544, 7515 & 7546/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Capital Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Advisors P. Ltd, 47A, 3Rd R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Floor, Plot No. 308 Air India Building, Vs. Hanuman Bldg, Perin Nariman Point, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacr2791N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…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…

Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7527 & 7526/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Global Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Finance Ltd., 4Th Floor, R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Silver Metropolis Bldg., Air India Building, Vs. Western Express Highway, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabcr1136N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 153A

…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…

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

What is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

Saryu Properties and Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

Shri Yogendra Khandelwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Prs Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Feegrade & Company Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, CC-193, Kolkata vs. M/S Rungta Sons Private Ltd., Kolkata

K.Badal Bai L/H of Late Sri A.Kewalchand, Gudiyatham vs. ACIT, Vellore

Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Spl. RG-2, Kolkata

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Spl. RG-2, Kolkata

Jks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2), Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mstc Ltd., Kolkata

M/S. Sunil Kumar Kundu, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Siliguri, Sirliguri

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

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

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-35, Kolkata

Anand Rathi Capital Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai