CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

…disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) on the ground that the own funds of the assessee were more than the double of investments by following the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340(Bom) while disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) was sustained by the ld.CIT(A) by observing that the expenses connected to the exempt income have to be disallowed under section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. 4 I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 and 4234/Mum/2014 6…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

…disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) on the ground that the own funds of the assessee were more than the double of investments by following the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340(Bom) while disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) was sustained by the ld.CIT(A) by observing that the expenses connected to the exempt income have to be disallowed under section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. 4 I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 and 4234/Mum/2014 6…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Shapoorji Pallonji Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Infrastructure Capital बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Company Ltd. Vs. M.K. Road, 41/44, S.P. Centre, Mumbai-400020 Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400005 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcs4370B

…ucture Capital Company Limited. capital and reserves/surplus are of Rs.316.79 crores, which were more than the investment of Rs.130.08 crores. In the light of the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), Pukhraj Chunnilal Bafna vs DCIT (2014) 65 SOT 187. Own case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2009- 10, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. B Arunumar Capital & Credit Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

…fore, it hasITA No.4148/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11) to be presumed that such investments were out of interest free funds following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Reliance Utilities And Power Limited., 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Consequently, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom) and in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom), the interest disallowed in pursuance to Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules has been deleted. Apart there from, the CIT(A) has observed in para - 5.1.6 of his o…

Roha Dyechem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Central Circle-43 Plot-A-44/45, Road No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Midc, Andheri(E), Mumbai400020. Mumbai-400092

…as at 31st March 2010 was Rs.868,635,071/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. 3 “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…

Stci Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Stci Finance Limited The Deputy Commissioner A/B, I-802, A Wing, 8Th Floor, Of Income Tax-I(3)(1), Marathon Innova, Marathon Aayakar Bhavan, Nextgen Compound, Off Churchgate, Mumbai Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aagcs9709K

…ubmissions. After considering the available material, he held that in the earlier two AYs no disallowance was made under clause (ii) of the Rule 8D (2)of the Rules. He referred to the cases of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and held that assessee’s capital, profit reserves were higher than the investments made in tax-free securities, that it had to be presumed that investments made by the assessee were out of interest refunds, that own fund of the assessee were to the tune of Rs. 784.34 crores, that the investments made by it were of Rs.219.27 crores. Finally, he d…

Sbi Capitalmarkets Ltd vs. DCIT Sp. RG 27

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

…out of the borrowed funds, that no disallowance in relation to interest expense could be made as the own fund/non-interest- bearing funds exceeded the investments made.He relied upon the cases of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529),Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and referred to page 4 of the paper book. The DR argued that the FAA had categorically recorded the findings in the AY.1992 -93,that having regard to Share Capital, Reserves, Investment in Fixed Assets and Liabilities the assessee company had no money of its own,that the amounts were diverted to HSM Group from borrowings,that the above facts wer…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Faco Fastners P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 6(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Faco Fastners Pvt. R.No.506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., Bhavan 196, Mutton Street M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 Null Bazar, 020 Mumbai – 400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aabcf2490D Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM DCIT CIR 6(3)(1) Vs. M/s. Faco Fastners Pvt. R.No.506, 5th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., Bhavan 196, Mutton Street M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 Null Bazar, 020 Mumbai – 400 003 PAN/GIR No. AABCF2490D Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee by Shri Kartik Mehta Date of Hearing 24/08/2017 Date of Pronouncement 26/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 12, Mumbai dated 16/12/2016 for the A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jostars Orogotech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘D’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Shaktijit Dey, JM ITA No.1288/Mum/2017 : Asst.Years 2009-2010 The Income Tax Officer M/s.Jostars Orogotech Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Ward 6(3)(3) A-501 Innova Marathon, Next to Gen Mumbai. Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. PAN : AABCJ3749B. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) CO No.191/Mum/2017 : Asst.Years 2009-2010 M/s.Jostars Orogotech Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ A-501 Innova Marathon, Next to Gen Ward 6(3)(3) Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg…

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

…isallowance is called for on account of interest vide Rule 8D(2)(ii) of IT Rules, 1962. In this regard, he relied on various decisions including that of the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340, with which we agree. Regarding the disallowance out of administrative expenses, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that disallowance of a reasonable percentage of the exempt income is an accepted method of quantifying the disallowance of expenses for the AYs prior to AY 2008-2009, the year of amendment to Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. In this re…

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

…isallowance is called for on account of interest vide Rule 8D(2)(ii) of IT Rules, 1962. In this regard, he relied on various decisions including that of the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340, with which we agree. Regarding the disallowance out of administrative expenses, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that disallowance of a reasonable percentage of the exempt income is an accepted method of quantifying the disallowance of expenses for the AYs prior to AY 2008-2009, the year of amendment to Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. In this re…

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

…isallowance is called for on account of interest vide Rule 8D(2)(ii) of IT Rules, 1962. In this regard, he relied on various decisions including that of the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340, with which we agree. Regarding the disallowance out of administrative expenses, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that disallowance of a reasonable percentage of the exempt income is an accepted method of quantifying the disallowance of expenses for the AYs prior to AY 2008-2009, the year of amendment to Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. In this re…

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

…isallowance is called for on account of interest vide Rule 8D(2)(ii) of IT Rules, 1962. In this regard, he relied on various decisions including that of the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340, with which we agree. Regarding the disallowance out of administrative expenses, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that disallowance of a reasonable percentage of the exempt income is an accepted method of quantifying the disallowance of expenses for the AYs prior to AY 2008-2009, the year of amendment to Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. In this re…