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 367,194 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.

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 3769/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

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…

U.B. Cotton P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3357/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. U.B. Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2(3) 7th Floor, Indian Globe Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 142, W.H. Marg. Fort M.K. Rd. Churchgate Mumbai – 400001 Mumbai PAN No. AAACU5526C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR Revenue by: Shri B.S. Bist, DR Date of Hearing : 29/03/2017 Date of pronouncement: 31/05/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2008-09. Th…

DCIT, Central Cir. VI, Kolkata vs. M/S J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 611/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…point of the Revenue. It is well settled that businessman knows his interest best. We place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 221 CTR (Born) 435: (2009) 19 DTR (Born) 1 : (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Born) in support of our view that if the own funds are available with the assessee and if the same and more than the investments made by the assessee, then it has to be presumed that the investments were made out of own funds and not out of borrowed funds. Hence the provisions of r.8D(2)(ii) cannot be invoked in these circumstances. b) On non-a…

Inducto Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2555/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07 Inducto Steel Ltd. Acit, 156, Maker Chamber Vi, Cc-38, बनाम/ 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci1045E

Section 14A

…in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Ltd. (Supra), Rule-8D of the rules is not applicable to the case of the assessee. The issue has been examined by Hon'ble High Court/Courts and also by Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340(Bom.), Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 518 (P & H) has thrown light on the issue. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has observed that the assessee has showed capital and reserved of Rs.4.95 crores and it appears that the funds deployed for acquisition of fixed assets (Rs. 29 lakh), granting loan and advanced to sister concern (Rs.4.22 crores)…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Serums & Vaccines Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3577/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Acit-3(1)(1), Room No.607,6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai - 40020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Bharat Serums & Vaccines Ltd. 17Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 Pan:Aaacb 2431M .... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Beena Santosh/For Respondent: Shri P.P.Bhandari

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The ACIT-3(1)(1), Room No.607,6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai - 40020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/s. Bharat Serums & Vaccines Ltd. 17th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 PAN:AAACB 2431M .... Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Beena Santosh/ Ms. Pooja Swaroop Respondent by : Shri P.P.Bhandari Date of hearing : 18/05/2017 Date of pronouncement : 24 /05/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment…

Hershey India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 1409/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: S/Shri Alok Johari & Arju Goradia

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 80M

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ जेजेजेजे” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“J”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1409/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Her…

Hariyana Ship Breakers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 38, Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2556/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2556/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Hariyana Ship Breakers Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax बनाम/ 156, Maker Chambers Vi Central Circle 38 220, Jamanalal Bajaj Marg, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nariman Point M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-2476-E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Reepal G. Traishawala,Ld. ARFor Respondent: Riju Jaikaran, Ld. DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254

…trength in the argument of Ld. AR that there being no nexus between borrowed funds and investments, a presumption has to be drawn that the investments were out of owned funds as observed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] which was followed in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [supra]:- “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 5 Hariyana Ship Breakers Limited Assessment Year-2007-08 presumed that the investments were from the interest-free funds available. In ou…

Arjav Diamonds (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7467/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Vs. Acit – 5(1), Mumbai Ltd., 314, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aagca2472D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43Section 43(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Vs. ACIT – 5(1), Mumbai Ltd., 314, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 PAN/GIR No. AAGCA2472D Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kigondwala Revenue by Shri A Ramachandran Date of Hearing 17/03/2017 Date of Pronouncement 17/05/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 9, Mumbai dated 09/10/2012 for the A.Y.2008-09 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mukund Global Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Acit – 3 (2) (1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Mukund Global 3Rd Finance Ltd., Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm8384N Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…income. Hence, without examining the nature of expenditure disallowed by the assessee or correctness of allowance/disallowance, the Assessing Officer could not invoke Rule 8D. • Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340, wherein it has been held as under: "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" • M/s. Food link Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ITA Nos. 4620/Mum./2011 and 7284lM…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3884/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-2006 M/S Jindal Drugs Ltd., The A.C.I.T. Central Circle-8, Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B & C, Room No. 805, 8Th Floor, 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Annex, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacj1000A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-2006 The D.C.I.T. Central Circle-8, M/S Jindal Drugs Ltd., Room No. 805, 8Th Floor, Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B & C, Old Cgo Annex, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Pan: Aaacj1000A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. Amrita Ranjan (DR)

Section 143Section 145Section 145ASection 14ASection 271Section 274Section 80I

…is liable for penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 8. We notice that the coordinate Bench has deleted the addition of Rs. 21,70,628/- made u/s 14A of the Act by following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Tata Project Ltd. (ITA No. 5862/Mum/2006). However, the Tribunal has upheld the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 4,29,880/- as administrative expenses by following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2004-05. The relevant portion o…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Svl Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 3007/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 May 2017AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

…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.2746/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. SVL Limited, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Formerly Shriram Industrial Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,) Corporate Circle 6(1), Mookambika Complex, Chennai. No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AAACS7696D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयक…

Shriram Industrial Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 2746/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 May 2017AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeals of the Revenue for both the relevant assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2226/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 May 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: 12.04.2017

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 250(6)Section 73Section 80I

…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.Nos.2225 & 2226/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) & C.O. Nos. 130 & 131/Mds/2016 Vs M/s. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1A, Owners Court, Corporate Circle 1(1), 22 Montieth Lane, Chennai -34. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 PAN: AABCH2431G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respond…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeals of the Revenue for both the relevant assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2225/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 May 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: 12.04.2017

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 250(6)Section 73Section 80I

…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.Nos.2225 & 2226/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) & C.O. Nos. 130 & 131/Mds/2016 Vs M/s. Allianz Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1A, Owners Court, Corporate Circle 1(1), 22 Montieth Lane, Chennai -34. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 PAN: AABCH2431G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respond…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. Comm of Income Tax Range-11 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3406/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: S/Shri N.K.Chand &

Section 143(3)

…was also canvassed that surplus non-interest bearing funds available with the assessee are in excess of the value of investments made and reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.,313 ITR 340(Bom) to say that the investments are presumed to be made out of interest-free funds. Thus, no disallowance could be made out of interest expenditure. It was also canvassed that the investments in sister-concerns and subsidiaries were out of business exigencies, and thus the same are out of the purview of Section 14A of the Act. With regard to the…

Gopalan Enterprises (P) Ltd vs. Addl C.I.T

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 158/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Pradeep, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 23

…llowing four judgments :- a) CIT vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. as reported in 218 Taxman 142. b) CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd., 323 ITR 518 (P & H). c) CIT vs. Kribhco as reported in 349 ITR 618. d) CIT vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340. 20. We have already seen that in the first three judgments, the A. Y. involved is prior to 2008 – 09 i.e. before Rule 8D became operative and therefore, we hold that these judgments are not applicable after Rule 8D has become operative. In the fourth case i.e. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. (Supra) also, the A. Y. involved was 10 IT(TP)A Nos.49…

Sea Linkers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1583/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Assessment Year 2009-10 Sea Linkers Pvt. Ltd. Acit 7(2) B P T Plot No.107, Mumbai Vs. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai – 400 010

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Dr. A K Nayak

Section 14A

…made by the assessee it had total interest free fund of `.10.32 crores. Therefore, no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) • CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) • HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) As far as disallowance of administrative expenditure is concerned, the learned AR relied upon the submissions made before the first appellate authority to contend that since the entire investment activity is routed through Citibank, which…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Premier Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1566/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar,DRFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dedia,AR

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT 3(2)(2) Vs. M/s. Premier Limited 6th Floor, R. No. 674 58 Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd. Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 PAN No. AAACT5523G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Purushottam Kumar,DR Revenue by: Shri Jayesh Dedia,AR Date of Hearing : 08/02/2017 Date of pronouncement: 28/04/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM These two appeals by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 and 20…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Premier Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1357/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar,DRFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dedia,AR

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2562/M/2013 & 4852/M/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2005-06 Asst. Commissioner of Income- Shri Nishith Desai, tax, 11(3), Prop. of Nishith Desai Room No.446, Associates, Vs. 4th Floor, 94-B, Mittal Court, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAAPD8418K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Nishith M. Desai, The Addl. Commissioner of Prop: Nishith Desai Associates, Income-tax, 94B, Mittal Court, Vs. Range…