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 367,154 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.

Graphtech Exim Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1441/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68

…ce was placed on the following decisions: • Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016) 379 ITR 347/ 236 Taxman 447 (SC) • CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Verma(2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj) • CIT Vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj) • CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) C. Loans and Advances Were Made During the Year ITA NO. 1441/JP/2024 GRAPHTECH EXIM PVT LTD VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR It is further submitted that the loans and advances in question were made during the assessment year in question. The timing of these advances is crucial, as they were made from funds available in the company's re…

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

…be seen that, same view has been taken by the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. Once the surplus/interest free funds are excess of investment made, then in view of the ratio and principle laid down by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, no disallowance under section 14A on account of interest expenditure should be made. Their Lordships have clearly opined that, once in the Balance Sheet, the assessee has reflected surplus/own funds and also interest bearing funds, then presumption is that, investment…

Lakozy Motors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 110/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainlakozy Motors Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito – 10(2)(1) Room No. 373, 3Rd Floor 8, Shah Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Estate, Next To Road, Mumbai – Ghanshyam Industrial 400020. Estate, Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. Aaacl1889K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…l, reserves and surplus, which is more than interest free loans and advances by the assessee to the related parties. Therefore, while placing reliance upon the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd, [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom), wherein it was held that “if funds are available that the assessee which are sufficient to meet the investment, then the presumption would arise that the investment is made out of funds so available with the assessee” 6. I find no basis in the proportionate disallowance of interest expenditure made by the AO, therefore while relying upon…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Boria, Himatnagar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1648/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

…hares and deposits and the natural presumption to be made that such investments have been made out of own funds by the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 2613/Ahd/2012 as well as in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur, Prahlad Nagar vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Operative Milk Poroducers Union Limited, Milk Producers Union

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1589/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

…hares and deposits and the natural presumption to be made that such investments have been made out of own funds by the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298. ITA No. 1588&1589/Ahd/2024 & 1648/Ahd/2024 DCIT vs. Sabarkantha District Co.op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. Asst. Years –2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 - 6– Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the de…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur vs. Sabarkantha District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Milk Producers Union Limited

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1588/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

…hares and deposits and the natural presumption to be made that such investments have been made out of own funds by the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298. ITA No. 1588&1589/Ahd/2024 & 1648/Ahd/2024 DCIT vs. Sabarkantha District Co.op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. Asst. Years –2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 - 6– Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the de…

Sarbinder Singh Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7591/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalsarbinder Singh Bindra Asst. Cit, 362, 2Nd Floor, Circle-47(1), Naya Katra, Chandni Vs. Delhi. Chowk, Delhi-110006. Pan-Aaepb2783P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…0 (Cal). (iii) CIT v. Hotel Savera (1999) 239 ITR 795 @799-800 (Mad) (iv) CIT v. Radico Khaitan Ltd. (2005) 274 ITR 354 @ 365-366 (All) (v) CIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd. (2006) 280 ITR 525 @ 532-534 (Cal) In CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that where the investments were out of mixed funds and interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments, a presumption would arise that investments were out of interest free funds. Hon’ble Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627, Munjal Sales Corporation v. CI…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S. Fuelco Coal India Ltd., Nagpur

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

…assessee company is Rs.24.94 crores (P-39). 14 M/s. Fuel Co. Coal India Ltd. ITA no.90/Nag./2022 B) CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported at 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and Apex Court judgement in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. as assessee was having share and reserves & surplus at Rs.24.94 crores. C) Issue in dispute is covered in favour of assessee by decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. reported at 410 ITR 466 (SC).…

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

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

ITA 2379/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 14A

…Rules, 1962 le 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962) needs to be set aside" eeds to be set aside". We also note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 has laid the proposition laid the proposition of law that, when there are both interest free funds and interest bearing when there are both interest free funds and interest bearing when there are both interest free funds and interest bearing funds, the presumption is that interest free funds were util…

Arun Ramchandra Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4014/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Arun Ramchandra Sheth, Dcit, Central Circle-2, B/20, Kamana Chs, No.1, 6Th Floor, S.K. Bole Road, Vs. Ashar It Park, Road No. 16, Prabhadevi, Dadar, Wagle Estate, Thane Mumbai Maharashtra Pan : Alzps2005D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaninamFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR

…e of the investments, the presumption is that the assessee has made the investments out of own funds only. For this proposition, we may take support from the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., [313 ITR 340]. Accordingly, we are of the view that the disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure claimed by the assessee is not justified in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the disallowance. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order p…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2787/CHNY/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2787/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S.Ramco Industries Limited The Acit, Corporate Circle-2, 98A, Auras Corporation Centre, Madurai. Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacr-5284-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anita,Addl.CITFor Respondent: Mr. S.Muralidhar, F.C.A &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…fficer disallowing a part of interest payments under section 14A of the Act (read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962) needs to be set aside". We also note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 has laid the proposition of law that, when there are both interest free funds and interest bearing funds, the M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd :: 5 :: presumption is that interest free funds were utilized for interest free investment and advances. Such a proposition of law has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance In…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CC-3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3071/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

…hat of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court as under: P a g e | 7 ITA No. 3070, 3071 & 3068/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Aarti Drugs Limited, Mumbai i. South Indian Bank Ltd. 130 taxman.com 178 (SC) ii. Reliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) iii. HDFC Bank Ltd. 363 ITR 505 (Bom.) iv. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. 146 taxman.com 174 (Delhi) In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, Ld. AR argued that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld as it is in line with the settled legal position on the issue. On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the or…

DCIT CC 3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3070/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

…ed by him that the issue is also covered in favour of the assessee in various decisions including that of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court as under: i. ii. iii. iv. South Indian Bank Ltd. 130 taxman.com 178 (SC) Reliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) HDFC Bank Ltd. 363 ITR 505 (Bom.) PTC India Financial Services Ltd. 146 taxman.com 174 (Delhi) In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, Ld. AR argued that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld as it is in line with the settled legal position on the issue. On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the order of Ld…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CC-3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

ITA 3068/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

T vs. Motor Company Ltd., Chennaivs.ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ppeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

…of I.T Rules, 1962) needs to be set aside". We note that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of . We note that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of . We note that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 has laid the proposition of law that e proposition of law that, when there are both interest free funds when there are both interest free funds and interest bearing funds, the presumption is that interest free funds and interes…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Olive Bar & Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 6255/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani

Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

…mixed usage of funds, a presumption was to be drawn in assessee's favor that interest free loans were granted out of free funds available with the assessee in terms of decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340]. However, both the lower authorities distinguished the same on the ground that the decision was rendered in the context of investments made by the assessee and not in the context of grant of interest free advances. However, the said reasoning, in our opinion, would hold no water since the ratio of the cited decision would apply in all cases wher…

Olive Bar and Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5924/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani

Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result,appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 5915/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. M/S Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax बनाम 12Th Floor, 3(2)(1),Aayakarbhawan, Bakhtawarramnathgoenka Room No. 608 Mumbai – Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020, Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1000A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी M/S Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., V/S. Assistant Commissioner 12Th Floor, बनाम Of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Bakhtawarramnathgoenka Marg, Aayakarbhawan, Room No. 229Nariman Point Mumbai - 400 608 Mumbai – 400 020, 021, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1000A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakkani,ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…ummed up the law on the issue after noticing the availability of own funds as per Balance Sheet of the assessee and after digesting all decisions on the subject, the Court noticed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 (Bom), which was later confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 37/2019 vide order dated 02-01-2019, wherein it was held that where the interest free funds far exceed the value of investments, it should be considered that investments have been made out of interest free funds and no disallowance u/s. 14A towards any interest expenditure c…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. T Bhimjyani Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeea.Y : 2018-19 :

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…e presumption is that the investments have been made first out of interest free funds. In that case, the disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act shall not arise. It has been so explained by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power (313 ITR 340)(Bom as under:- “10. 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. In 7 in East India Pharmaceutical our opinion the Supreme Court Works Ltd.'s case (supra) had the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur vs. Mahalaxmi Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 979/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…,34,047/- are made either from own funds or out of receipts from earlier investments and hence, no disallowance u/s 14A is called for. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and the decision of ITAT Pune in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s Gujrat Tea Traders Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 90/PN/2014) and in the case of S.M. Auto Engg. Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2050 & 2051/PN/2013). The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Munjal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 (SC) was also brought to the attention to the Ld. AO wherein…