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.

Alfa Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1570/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1570/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Shivaram & NeelamFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav,DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ssue on merits in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT reported in (2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom HC) , CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom HC) and decision CIT v. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd.(2012) 207 taxman 219(Bom HC). With respect to the second issue ,it was submitted that the A.O applied wrong provisions of the 1961 Act . It is claimed that the assessee is engaged I.T.A. No.1570/Mum/2015 in the business of Manufacturing of IMFL from the year 1975 and the a…

M/S Mittal Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 734/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 734/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke M/s Mittal Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Vs. 101-102, Film Colony, Dawa Ward 1(2), Bazar, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 5389 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@…

Munjal Showa Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1030/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

…hows that there is no investment by the taxpayer in the end of the year, no disallowance can be made as has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in HT Media Ltd. (supra). 33. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. - (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) held that in case the assessee has mixed pool of funds and investment has been made to earn interest free income then a presumption would arise that the investment has been made out of interest free funds generated or available with the company by making following observations :- “Held, dismissing the appeal, that if there were funds avai…

Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 912/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kirit R KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 14A

…that the investment was made from own funds and not from borrowed funds. Similar view has been taken in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and 5 ITA.No.911, 912, 1328 & 1329/MUM/2014 Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s. Biostadt India Limited Power Ltd [313 ITR 340]. Further we also observe that the assessee itself disallowed 10% of the dividend income at ₹.4,013/- and ₹.1,15,144/- for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively at its own being the expenditure attributable for earing the exempt income and the Assessing Officer had not given any reason for rejecting the stand taken by the assessee…

Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 911/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kirit R KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 14A

…that the investment was made from own funds and not from borrowed funds. Similar view has been taken in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and 5 ITA.No.911, 912, 1328 & 1329/MUM/2014 Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s. Biostadt India Limited Power Ltd [313 ITR 340]. Further we also observe that the assessee itself disallowed 10% of the dividend income at ₹.4,013/- and ₹.1,15,144/- for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively at its own being the expenditure attributable for earing the exempt income and the Assessing Officer had not given any reason for rejecting the stand taken by the assessee…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1329/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kirit R KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 14A

…that the investment was made from own funds and not from borrowed funds. Similar view has been taken in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and 5 ITA.No.911, 912, 1328 & 1329/MUM/2014 Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s. Biostadt India Limited Power Ltd [313 ITR 340]. Further we also observe that the assessee itself disallowed 10% of the dividend income at ₹.4,013/- and ₹.1,15,144/- for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively at its own being the expenditure attributable for earing the exempt income and the Assessing Officer had not given any reason for rejecting the stand taken by the assessee…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1328/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kirit R KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 14A

…that the investment was made from own funds and not from borrowed funds. Similar view has been taken in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and 5 ITA.No.911, 912, 1328 & 1329/MUM/2014 Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s. Biostadt India Limited Power Ltd [313 ITR 340]. Further we also observe that the assessee itself disallowed 10% of the dividend income at ₹.4,013/- and ₹.1,15,144/- for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively at its own being the expenditure attributable for earing the exempt income and the Assessing Officer had not given any reason for rejecting the stand taken by the assessee…

M/S.Devon Plantations & Industries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1940/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. H. N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 14A

…ITA.1940 to 1943/Bang/2016 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A Nos.1940 to 1943/Bang/2016 (Assessment Years : 2007-08 to 2010-11) M/s. Devon Plantations & Industries Ltd, No.29, Empire Infantry, Infantry Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Appellant PAN : AAACD7869H v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -11(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. H. N. Khincha, CA Revenue by : Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT Heard on : 01.11.2017 Pronounced on : 17.11.…

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Kausthubha Project Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1310/BANG/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 14A

…ent that the availability of profit, share capital and reserves & surplus was much more than investments made by the assessee which could yield tax free income. ITA.1310/Bang/2016 Page - 6 41. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) has 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 can be made. This view was again confirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., ITA No.330 of…

Radiant Indus Chem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal bearing no

ITA 5632/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…/ 2 0 1 5 crore and therefore the said money was advanced out of own funds and from internal accruals by the assessee company. In support of this submissions the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Reliance Utility Ltd 331 ITR 340 (Bom). However, the reply of the assessee did not find favour of the AO and he, after brushing aside the contentions of the assessee, worked out the disallowance at Rs.19,80,465/- being 40% of the interest paid to bank on OD/CC of Rs.39,60,931/-. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considerin…

Radiant Indus Chem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal bearing no

ITA 5631/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…/ 2 0 1 5 crore and therefore the said money was advanced out of own funds and from internal accruals by the assessee company. In support of this submissions the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Reliance Utility Ltd 331 ITR 340 (Bom). However, the reply of the assessee did not find favour of the AO and he, after brushing aside the contentions of the assessee, worked out the disallowance at Rs.19,80,465/- being 40% of the interest paid to bank on OD/CC of Rs.39,60,931/-. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considerin…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…power to compute disallowance under section 14A as per provisions of Rule 8D, even for assessment years 2008-09 and onwards. He submitted that similar view is taken in CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd.: 336 ITR 434 (P&H) , CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom) , CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.: 363 ITR 474 (Guj). ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 6.3. Reference can also be made to the decisions in Chemical & Mettallurgical Design Co. Ltd : ITA No. 803/2008 (Delhi), CIT Vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor : 319 ITR 299 (Delhi), ACIT v. Eicher Limited: 101 TTJ 369 (Del.) , Maruti Udyog Limited V. DCIT: 92 ITD 119 (Del.), on the…

M/S Cri Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 557/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 M/S Cri Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Circle-11(1), 333, Garia Main Road, P-7, Chowringhee Mahamayatalla, Nr. Child Square, Kokata-69 School, Kolkata-84 [Pan No.Aabcc 3552 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Agarwal, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sauarabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-10-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata Dated 19.02.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-45(2), Kolkata U/S 143(3)/263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 07.01.2013 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri Saurabh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee Is That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Addition Of ₹3,31,501/- On Account Of Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act.

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

…ced on page 12 of the paper book. The ld. AR also submitted that borrowed fund of the assessee has been reduced in comparison to the earlier year. In this regard, Ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utility Power 313 ITR 340. Accordingly it was submitted that it can be inferred that no borrowed fund has been utilized in the acquisition of machine. Ld. AR in support of assessee’s ITA No.557/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2007-08 M/s CRI Ltd. Vs. DCIT Cir-11(1), Kol. Page 4 claim drew our attention at page 12 of the paper book where the balance- sheet of the assessee was placed. He fu…

Natesan Synchrocones P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1007/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…r making investments, the Assessing Officer cannot apply Rule 8D(2)(ii) and make the disallowance by relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) as well as the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and prayed that the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rue 8D shall be deleted. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book filed by the assessee. In th…

Natesan Synchrocones P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1006/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…r making investments, the Assessing Officer cannot apply Rule 8D(2)(ii) and make the disallowance by relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) as well as the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and prayed that the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rue 8D shall be deleted. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book filed by the assessee. In th…

Natesan Synchrocones P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2162/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…r making investments, the Assessing Officer cannot apply Rule 8D(2)(ii) and make the disallowance by relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) as well as the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and prayed that the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rue 8D shall be deleted. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book filed by the assessee. In th…

Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar House Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4004/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2011-12 Acit Circle 6(2)(2) Essar House Ltd., Mumbai Essar House, 11 K.K.Marg, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 034 Pan Aaacj2883P (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M V RajguruFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “L”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member Assessment Year : 2011-12 ACIT Circle 6(2)(2) Essar House Ltd., Mumbai Essar House, 11 K.K.Marg, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 034 PAN AAACJ2883P (Appellant) Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M V Rajguru Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta Date of Hearing :26.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2017 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member This appeal is by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) -12, Mumbai, dated 21.03.2016 for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The brie…

DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ashrit Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3284/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3284/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Shloka ShahaFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…73.39 crore has been invested in the commodities . Thus, it was claimed that no disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A is warranted. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.(2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom. HC) and also decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT v HDFC Bank Ltd.(2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom) and also other decisions of the courts/tribunal and contended that no disallowance of the interest expenditure can be made u/s 14A. It was submitted that there is an assumption that the assessee has applied its own interest free fun…

Gurera Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 476/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Gurera Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 4(2)(3) बिधम/ 33/37 Dwarkesh Market, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. A.M. Road, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai 400020 Vs. Mumbai 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaacg2269G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Narayan Atal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ount was called for u/s 36(1)(iii) in the hands of the assessee. We find that the assessee in support of its contention had specifically relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2008) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). We find that the CIT(A) sustained the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for the reason, that as the borrowed funds of the assessee of Rs.4,05,51,293/- were more than its self owned funds of Rs.2,10,58,442/-, therefore, as per him it could safely be concluded that the borrowed funds had been utilized by the assessee for giving in…

Mayur Ramniklal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4936/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4936/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mayur Ramniklal Shah Assistant Commissioner Of Kailash Bungalow Income Tax बनाम/ Lala Devidayal Cross Road Central Circle 38 Mulund (West) Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai – 400 080 M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aajps-2829-Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: K.P.Kapadia,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Suman Kumar, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D(2)(iii)

…ITA No.4936/M/2014 Mayur Ramniklal Shah Assessment Year 2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी महावीर िसंह,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4936/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mayur Ramniklal Shah Assistant Commissioner Of Kailash Bungalow Income Tax बनाम/ Lala Devidayal Cross Road Central Circle 38 Mulund (West) Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai – 400 080 M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAJPS-2…