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 367,282 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.

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Kali Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4415/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningeshen

Section 14A

…he own funds of the assessee in the form of share capital, reserves and surplus are more than the investments in all these years and also in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340], wherein it was held that if there are sufficient interest free funds available to assessee to meet its investments and at the same time the assessee also raised a loan it can be presumed that investments were from interest free funds available, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the M/s. Kail Ltd. disallowance made in respect of the interest disallowance ma…

Prayas Engineering Limited(Formerly Known As Prayas Castings Ltd.), Anand vs. The ACIT., Anand Range, Anand

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1146/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Javeri, Sr. D.R

Section 14A

…the investments. Therefore, we do not find any merit in making the disallowance on account of proportionate expenses. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 followed by HDFC Bank in 366 ITR 505. 10. However, at the same time, we are of the opinion that some reasonable disallowance ought to be made in respect of earning of the exempt income. ITA No. 1145 & 1146/Ahd/2014 4 . A.Y.2006-07 In our considered opinion, disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- should meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly, direct th…

Pn Nj Industries P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 10(3)(Old) DCIT Cir 15(2)(2) (New), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2324/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Pn Nj Industries Pvt. Acit, Circle-10(3) (Old) Ltd. Dcit, Circle-15(2)(2) Vs. Plot No. A-470, Ttc (New) Industries Area, Midc, 4Th Floor, Mahape, P.O. Ghansoi, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Navi Mumbai-400701 Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaccs1519B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Govind Javeri, Ar Revenue By: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Govind Javeri, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…bject/purpose of levy of tax on income. 7.2 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 : “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…

Mf Global Sify Securities India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4407/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4407/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mf Global Sify Securities India Addl. Commissioner Of Private Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mf Income Tax- Range 4(2) बिधम/ Global Sify Securities India Private Limited); Room No. 669, Aayakar 2Nd Floor, Modern Centre, Block Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, C, Mahalaxmi-Mumbai. Mumbai- 400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6382C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 68

…P a g e | 14 M.F. Global Sify Securities Vs. Addl. CIT which we find is not the issue involved in the case before us. We are further of the considered view that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), has held that where an assessee possesses sufficient interest free funds of its own, then it is to be presumed that amounts advanced or invested in the sister concern by the assessee were made out of interest free funds, and no part of the interest on borrowings would thus be liable to be disallowed on the ground that the said investments…

Lakshmiwadi Mines & Minerals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1079/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lakshmiwadi Mines & Ito-2(2)(2) Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 548, 5Th Vs. 20, Yusuf Building 43 Floor M.G. Road, Fort Aayakarbhavan Mumbai-400023. M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl1756F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Purushottam Kashyap, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Purushottam Kashyap, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…funds was Rs.2226.25 lacs as against investment of Rs.1174.63 lacs. In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) 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…

Shri Purshottam B. Pitroda, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Range -12, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 351/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 44A

…. – 363 ITR 474 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. – 354 ITR 630 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. – 352 ITR 583 (Guj) • CIT vs. Hitachi Home & Life solutions (I). Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 540 (Guj) • CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. – 313 ITR 340 (Bom) • Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT – 298 ITR 298 (SC) Respectfully, following the ITAT order and above judgments no part of the interest deserves to be disallowed u/s.14A. 5.5 Rest of the Grounds are general in nature. Shri Purshottam B. Pitroda vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2009-10 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Foods and Inns Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection of assessee stands allowed

ITA 4577/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

….36.61 lakhs and investment is Rs.2.13 lakhs. The share capital, reserves & surplus is much more than the investments, hence no interest is to be disallowed in view of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340/178 Taxman 135 (BOM) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited (2014) 49 taxman.com 335 (Bombay). However, the A.O. is directed to disallow 0.5% of the average investments.” 2.4 Against the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. We find that the Assessing Officer’s reliance upon the decision o…

Bharat Bijlee Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 383/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia

Section 14ASection 234C

…e Tribunal, while deciding the issue has not considered the binding decisions of Jurisdictional High Court and other Tribunal orders including those in the Applicant's Civil case. The said MA is pending disposal. . I CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) CITv. HDFC Bank (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) I1DFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom.) f CIT v. Microlabs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar.) \ Mrs, AnahaitaNalin Shah v. ACIT (ITA No. 7115/Mum/2013) (Mum.) In the case of Hind Filters Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 1792 & 417/M/20I3), interest disallowance for A.Y. 2009-10 was deleted In the case of P…

Bharat Bijlee Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 382/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia

Section 14ASection 234C

Aaa Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1195/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshmal LodhaFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.DR)

Section 14A

…action. The Revenue authorities did not consider at all the submission that borrowed funds were not used to earn exempt income. Assessee’s reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case Reliance Utilities and Power Limited [(2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.)], was also not dealt with. 8. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the authorities below have not properly adjudicated the issue. They have also not dealt with the decision of the jurisdictional High Court referred by the assessee. Hence, I remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is direct…

Meena R. Siroya, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6557/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Mrs. Meena Shrenik Siroya Vs. Income Tax Officer – 150, Mumba Devi Road 14(1)(2), Mumbai Zaveri Bazar Mumbai – 400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aabtb3373J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 143(3)

…clear from the above that the assessee has not charged interest at a lesser rate to Mr. Shailesh Siroya as against the rate of interest charged by HDFC Bank on its loan. 9. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) wherein the High Court held that if there were funds 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 5 Mrs. Meena Shrenik Siroya interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. 10. I…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Properties Pvt Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2018/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 03.04.2017

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2018/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs M/s. Shriram Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No.149, Greams Dugar, 4th & 5th Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1), Floor, Greams Road, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 006. PAN: AAFCS5801D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT अपीलाथ"क"…

DCIT, Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2009/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member ITA No.2009-2010/Kol/2014 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-4 V/s. M/s Jay Shree Tea & P-7, Chowringhee Industries Ltd., 10, Camac Square, Kolkata-69 Street, Industry House, 15th Floor, Kolkata-17 [PAN No.AAACJ 7788 C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Gouten Hangshing, CIT-DR & आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT-DR Shri B.K. Chaturvedi, AR राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 27-04-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख…

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1) Now DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1480/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Reliance Infrastructure 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Reliance Energy Centre Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai- 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Reliance Energy Centre 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Santacruz East, Mumbai- Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…ssessee suo moto disallowed a sum of Rs. 37,34,41,171/- u/s 14A of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bombay) by observing in Para 10.3 as under: - “10.3 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The A.O. had disallowed Rs.37,34,41,170/- u/s.14A. This disallowance is for M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. the expenditure related to interest and administrative expenditure. Howev…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrstructure Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1422/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)

M/S. Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3108/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3108/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5336/Mum/2008, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. Addl Cit,Range-3(2) (Formerly Known As Icici Securities Ltd.) Mumbai. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg Vs. Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaaci 0995 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3136/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit,Range-3(2) Vs. M/S.Icici Securities Ltd. (Formerly Known As Icici Securities Ltd.),Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: S/Shri Alok Johari & Arju Goradia-Sr.Dr Assessee By: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Niraj Sheth

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Niraj ShethFor Respondent: S/Shri Alok Johari and Arju Goradia-Sr.DR

Section 254(1)Section 36

…wance of Rs.11,47,10,000/- made by the AO is also deleted and consequently Grounds no.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed.” Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal, and considering the judgments of Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (313 ITR 340), Tulip Star Hotels Ltd.(338 ITR 482),we decide the 1st Ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. 3.Disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 2.44 crores u/s.14A of the Act is the subject matter of next ground. We find that identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal while deciding the appeals for the AY.s 2000-01 t…

Jm Financial Produts Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessees’ are allowed and that of Revenue’s are partly allowed

ITA 4062/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No.4061&4062/Mum/2015 (A.Y:2010-11) JM Financial Investment Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Managers Ltd Circle 3(2) & Room No. 674, M.K. Marg JM Financial Products Ltd Mumbai-400 020 7th Floor, Cnergy Appasheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai-400 025 PAN No. AAACF2955J & PAN No. AAACJ1236G Appellant .. Respondent ITA No.3940 & 3941/Mum/2015 (A.Y:2010-11) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax JM Financial Investment Circle 3(2) Managers Ltd Room No. 674, M.K. Marg & Mumbai-400 020 JM Financial Products…

Jm Financial Investment Managers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessees’ are allowed and that of Revenue’s are partly allowed

ITA 4061/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

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

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Value Retail Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3968/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit-9(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Future Value Retail Ltd., Knowledge House, Off Jogeshwari- Vikhroli Link Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai -400 060 Pan: Aaecp 3041P .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Haria

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 40

…d a finding that the own non-interest bearing funds of the assessee are sufficient to cover the investment in the tax free securities , therefore, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340(Bom), it has to be inferred that the investments have been made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. In this background, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made out of interest expenditure of Rs.23,31,350/- and retained the disallowance of Rs.2,55,750/- suo-motu made by the assessee. Against such a decision of the CIT(A), Reve…

Tropical Securities and Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-II) Cr 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6343/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hania, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…remium of Rs.75 lacs. In absence of any contrary finding, it can be assumed that the amount has been advanced out of these funds. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340. ITA No. 3769/M/2013 & 6343/M/2014 5 6. On the other hand the Ld. D.R. supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submits that the A.O. has rightly disallowed interest expenditure of Rs.38,16,020/-. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ledger account of Pursarth of accounting…