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 367,181 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.

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith Desai, Mumbai

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

ITA 2562/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

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…

Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2439/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

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

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1209/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. H. V. Gouthama, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

Section 14A

…is clear from the said statement 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. 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 20…

Jaguar International Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4371/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…are made out of interest free funds only as has been held by various judgments of the Hon'ble High Court as well as various Benches of the Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and HDFC. Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and that of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of Bright Enterprises In ITA No.224 of 2013 and Kapsons Associates in ITA No. 354 of 2013. 21.5 Further, it is a settled law that assessee is free to use its own funds the way it wants and the Revenue cannot compel the assessee to do or 5 Jaguar Internati…

Krishma Conchem Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2742/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain

Section 145(3)Section 68

…called for u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and should be deleted. In support of this submissions the ld.AR strongly placed reliance on the 6 decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT V/s HDFC BANK LTD. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom). So far as the disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, the ld.AR admitted that the same was required to be sustained. 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly objected to the plea put forth by the ld.AR and submitted that the provisions of section 14A of the Act rea…

Hcc Real Estate Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2209/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Vikrant Rajopadhye/For Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t the investments are to the tune of Rs.274.32 crores as against available Share capital & Reserves of Rs.304.46 crores. Quite clearly, in such a situation, the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) is applicable and even in the context of Sec.14A of the Act, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom) has held that it is to be presumed that the investments are out of non-interest bearing funds. Be that as it may, in our view, it would be in the fitness of things that the aforesaid aspect is verified…

Mutha Engineering P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2386/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmutha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle-4(2), C/O G.P. Mehta & Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cas, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Vs. 212, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aabcm 0781G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 14(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mutha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ACIT Circle-4(2), C/o G.P. Mehta & Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 6th Floor, M.K. Road, CAS, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Vs. 212, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN: AABCM 0781G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.P. Mehta (AR) Revenue by : Shri Suman Kumar (DR) Date of hearing : 17.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by u/s 253 of the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escort Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6674/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs. Escort Heart Institute & Research Circle-11(1), Centre Ltd., New Delhi. Okhla Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaace8731F Assessee By : Shri R.M. Mehta, Advocate Deptt. By : Shri U.C. Dubey, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, Advocate

Section 36(1)(iii)

…rplus funds and such funds are utilised as interest free advances even for a non-business purpose, there cannot be any disallowance of interest paid on interest bearing loans. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2001) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), has held that where an assessee possessed sufficient interest free funds of its own which were generated 4 in the course of relevant financial year, apart from substantial shareholders’ funds, presumption stands established that the investments in sister concerns were made by the assessee out of interest free funds and, therefore, no pa…

Shanti Lal Bhandari, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 73/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Moondra (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 145(3)Section 41(1)

…terest bearing funds were far in excess of the interest free advances given. Deduction claimed U/s 36(1)(iii) in respect of interest on its borrowings could not be declined. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) has held ITA 73/JP/2016_ 21 Shanti Lal Bahndari Vs ITO that the presumption would arise that investment would be at of the interest free funds generated or available with assessee. The findings of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under:- “If there be interest-free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investments…

Ramesh C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4054/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bepari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 94(7)

…are interest free funds, considering loan is advanced not out of 99.46% of funds but out of 0.32% of funds is devoid of rationality. Reliance was placed by him on the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340. On the other hand, the learned DR relies on the order passed by the learned CIT(A). 6.2 Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we find that (i) 99.46% of funds is interest free funds (ii) 0.32% of funds is interest free borrowed funds and (iii) 0.22% is interest bearing funds bearing in a common pool of…

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…nvestment and interest free advances available, hence, it is proved that investments have been made out of own funds. In this connection, the assessee had relied on the Judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (313 ITR 340) and HDFC Bank vs DCIT [383 ITR 0529]. In the light of above facts and judicial pronouncements, the assessee prayed that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted and the same shall be restricted to the disallowances offered by the Assessee. 61. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. We had also…

Reliance Infrastructure and Consultants Ltd ( Erstwhile Reliance Infrastructure Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue also allowed

ITA 6452/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile M/S Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)- Mumbai-400103 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)-400103. स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaccr7678G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 115JSection 14A

…unds at Rs. 1.16 crores and the investment is only Rs. 30.44 lakhs. Thus it can be safely concluded that the investments have come out of own funds. Even the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay has held in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 that where both own funds and loan funds are utilized by the assessee, the presumption is that the investments have come from the own funds. However, at the same time, we cannot deny that no expenditures have been incurred for earning the dividend income. Considering the facts of the case in totality and in the interest of justice and fair play,…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrastructure and Consultants Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue also allowed

ITA 6266/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 115JSection 14A

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5732/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

Section 14ASection 260

…ch in excess of the borrowed funds for which our attention was invited to page- 8 of the paper book. Reliance was placed upon the decision in HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) and CIT vs M/s Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). It was further explained that the assessee is in the business of finance and the interest income is more than interest expenditure. Our attention was invited to page-14 of the paper book and the latest decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Jubilant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1512 of 2014 order dated 28/0…

Sidd Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as indicated herein above

ITA 3044/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: 04.04.2017

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.3044/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The M/s. SIDD Life Sciences Private Deputy Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.4, NH-7, MMDA Industrial Corporate Ward 6(2), Estate, Marimalai Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 603 209 PAN: AAECS9251J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri Mukesh Kumar.M, CA अपीला…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5755/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ Dcit-10(2)(2), M/S. Mafatlal Industries Mumbai. Limited, Kaledonia, Office Vs. No.3, 6Th Floor, Sahar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400050. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacm2813L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms. Beena Santosh, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 36(1)(iii)

…Act is hereby disallowed. The AO is so directed. Ground nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are accordingly allowed.” 5. It is a settled principle at the level of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court vide its judgment in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (313 ITR 340), which is relevant for the proposition that if there are 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 fund generated or available with the company, if the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. Considering the same,…

S. Mansukhlal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2781/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Soods. Mansukhlal & Co., फनाभ/ Dcit, Range 14(2), Earnest House, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai-02. Ruia Building, 395, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aahfs9459A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, DR

Section 14A

…nds and other securities capable of yielding exempt income out of its own surplus funds unless contrary is brought on record by the AO keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom. HC), HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (2016) 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom). In our considered opinion, this addition of Rs. 9,12,886/- made by the AO and sustained by the Ld CIT (A) u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) of the 1962 Rules is not sustainable in law keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the c…

Bharat Talakshi Chheda, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 23(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2894/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Soodbharat Talakshi Chheda, फनाभ/ Jcit-23(2), 19, Ganesh Baug, Mumbai. Vs. J Nehru Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpc1879Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Ms. Dinkal Hariya प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 28.04.2014 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-7, Mumbai Dated 15.01.2014 For The Ay 2009-2010. 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 11,06,409/- U/S 14A Of The Act. Ao Considered The Above For Disallowance Out Of The Total Claim Of Interest Expenses Of R. 16,37,827/-. Ao Is Said To Have Ignored The Fact That The Assessee Has Adequate Own Funds & Also The Concept Of “Presumption” Laid Down In Various Judicial Pronouncements. On Appeal, Cit (A) Confirmed The Above Stand Of The Ao. 3. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld Ar For The Assessee Brought Our Attention To The Binding Judgment Of The Cit Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 Itr 340 (Bom.) & Also Binding Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Hdfc Bank Ltd Vs. Dcit [2016] 383 Itr 529 (Bombay) & Requested For Directing The Ao To Apply The Said Ratios Of The Judgments.

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkal HariyaFor Respondent: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, DR

Section 14A

…ion” laid down in various judicial pronouncements. On appeal, CIT (A) confirmed the above stand of the AO. 3. Before us, at the outset, Ld AR for the assessee brought our attention to the binding judgment of the CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and also binding judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bombay) and requested for directing the AO to apply the said ratios of the judgments. 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material and th…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…available with the assessee for making investment in tax free securities and it was contended that since investment was out of assessee’s own interest free funds, in terms of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505, no disallowance of interest is warranted. With regard to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) he contended that assessee itself has offered the amount attributable for earning the exempt income, therefore, further disallowance made by Revenue authorities was not justified. 28. Learned AR also invited our at…

Sanjay Kumar Poddar, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 15(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part

ITA 3150/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3150/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Jain & Associates, Circle 15(1),Matru Mandir, Vs. 12 Engineer Building, 265, Princess Mumbai-400 006. Street, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan:Aabpp 2018 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3961/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Vs. Jain & Associates, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr Assessee By: Shri S.L. Jain

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak- DR

Section 10Section 111ASection 143Section 2Section 254(1)

…is own capital exceeded the total investment in shares hearing exempt income, no disallowance under the head interest expenditure could be made applying to section 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules. He referred to the cases of Reliance Utility and Power Ltd (313 ITR 340) and Yatish Trading Private Ltd. (129 ITD 237). After considering the available material, the FAA observed that assessee had not been able to substantiate, by producing the bank statement showing movement of funds, that no borrowed funds had been used for investment in shares, that during the year he had entered into several share transactions in…