CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

United Shippers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 30, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…showing the investments made out of Share Capital and Reserves for the period from FY 1989-90 to FY 2007-08. Reliance in this regard is placed by assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd, 313 ITR 340 (Bom). (b) Out of total exempt income (dividend) of Rs.41,48,378/-, dividend of Rs.35,86,886/- was received form Canara Rebeco Mutual Fund. The investment in the said mutual fund was made through investment broker M/s Practical financial Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, who were paid for their services by Canara Rebeco MF directly by 4 यूनाइटेड "श"पेस"…

United Shippers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 30, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…showing the investments made out of Share Capital and Reserves for the period from FY 1989-90 to FY 2007-08. Reliance in this regard is placed by assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd, 313 ITR 340 (Bom). (b) Out of total exempt income (dividend) of Rs.41,48,378/-, dividend of Rs.35,86,886/- was received form Canara Rebeco Mutual Fund. The investment in the said mutual fund was made through investment broker M/s Practical financial Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, who were paid for their services by Canara Rebeco MF directly by 4 यूनाइटेड "श"पेस"…

Raksha Sudhir Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(2)(4), Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhsmt. Raksha Sudhir Sheth, 104, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Rameshwar, Rajawadi Road, Ward -22(2) (4), Tower-6, Neelkanth Valley, Ghatkopar (East), Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Mumbai 400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 Pan:Awpps 9103 B Appellant .. Respondent .. Appellant By Ms. Mathuria, Ar Respondent By .. Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 14-07-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 14-07-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (A), Mumbai-25 Passed In Appeal No. Cit (A)-33/It/364/10-11 Dated 01-12-2014. Assessment Was Framed By The Ito, Ward- 22(2)(4), Mumbai For Assessment Year 2008-09 Vide His Order Dated 20-12-2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

…icularly when the AO is unable to prove the nexus. I find from the facts of the case that the assessee’s issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Ltd. Vs CIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities (2009) 313 ITR 340. In view of the above facts, I am of the view that the assessee was having own funds, which are more than the funds invested in shares yielding exempted income. Accordingly, the issue being covered, I allow the claim of the assessee. 5. The next issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of the CIT (A) in giving direction to the A…

Jewelex India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu& Shri Sanjay Garg.

…and, therefore, the presumption is that such investment is out of interest free funds available with the assessee. The aforesaid presumption is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom). The said presumption was applied by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court while interpreting section 14A of the Act in the case of CIIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom). Such a position has been further endorsed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court subsequently in the case of the HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 383 ITR 529 (Bom). Thus, conside…

ACIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Composities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 6842/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 The Acit-10(2), M/S. Hindustan Composites बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 B-11, Paragon Condominium, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli,Mumbai-400 078

…ized for investments hence expenses towards interest cannot be disallowed under Rule 8D(2)(ii). He further places reliance on the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs HDFC Bank in I.T Appeal No. 30 of 2012 & CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., (313 ITR 340) (Bom) in support of his contentions. 3 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee’s share capital is Rs. 5.50 crores, reserves and surplus of the assessee stood at Rs. 486.46 crores and whereas the investments for earning exempt income was Rs. 14.98…

Citicorp Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

…vely,it was argued that the disallowance should be restricted to 1% of the exempt income.He referred to the cases of HDFC Bank Ltd. (Writ Petition 1753 of 2016), HDFC Bank Ltd.(ITA/374/Mum/2012),HDFC Bank Limited(366 ITR 505),Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.(313 ITR 340), Suzlon Energy Ltd. (354 ITR 630),Hero Cycles Ltd.(323 ITR 518),Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & Ors.(237CTR 164),Videocon Industries Ltd.(ITA/ 6145/ Mum/2012,1728/Mum/2014 & 1729/Mum/2014 order dt.06.02.2015),Shoppers Stop (ITA /1448 & 4475/Mum/2010 order dated 30.08.2011) in support of his argument that if the assessee had sufficient own funds from…

Addl CIT 10-(1), Mumbai vs. Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd, Mumbai

…vely,it was argued that the disallowance should be restricted to 1% of the exempt income.He referred to the cases of HDFC Bank Ltd. (Writ Petition 1753 of 2016), HDFC Bank Ltd.(ITA/374/Mum/2012),HDFC Bank Limited(366 ITR 505),Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.(313 ITR 340), Suzlon Energy Ltd. (354 ITR 630),Hero Cycles Ltd.(323 ITR 518),Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & Ors.(237CTR 164),Videocon Industries Ltd.(ITA/ 6145/ Mum/2012,1728/Mum/2014 & 1729/Mum/2014 order dt.06.02.2015),Shoppers Stop (ITA /1448 & 4475/Mum/2010 order dated 30.08.2011) in support of his argument that if the assessee had sufficient own funds from…

Grabal Alok Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

…ubsidiary company. As per ld. AR since sufficient own funds were available with the assessee to cover the investment so made, no disallowance should be made as per verdict of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Limited, 313 ITR 340. He further contended that investment so made in share application money of the company should be excluded. 12. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities. 13. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that during the year under consideration, the assessee had given advances to its Associate Enterprise…

ACIT Cir. 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Mbmer & Shri Saktijit Dey

…advanced can be made as the Assessing Officer has failed to establish a nexus between the borrowed funds and loans advanced. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Reliance Utilities and Powers Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, learned Authorised Representative contended, the average cost of fund should be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 36(1)(iii). He submitted, the Assessing Officer has not proved that only borrowed funds were utilised for advancing loans to the subsidiary compa…

Sundial Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 & M/S Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd, Income Tax-Circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacs9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 15.5.2012 & 21.10.2013 & They Pertain To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical / Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs.

…nvestments and therefore no disallowance on account of interest under rules 8D 2(ii) was called for. 12. The ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities (Bombay High Court) reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) in support of his arguments. The ld. Counsel further alternatively submitted that the disallowance under rule 8D 2(ii) be calculated with reference to net interest paid of Rs.4,87,193/- and not gross amount of interest of Rs.1,09,76,745/-. Finally, the ld.counsel submitted before us that the disallowance as made by the AO be ordered to be d…

Sundial Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 & M/S Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd, Income Tax-Circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacs9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 15.5.2012 & 21.10.2013 & They Pertain To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical / Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs.

…nvestments and therefore no disallowance on account of interest under rules 8D 2(ii) was called for. 12. The ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities (Bombay High Court) reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) in support of his arguments. The ld. Counsel further alternatively submitted that the disallowance under rule 8D 2(ii) be calculated with reference to net interest paid of Rs.4,87,193/- and not gross amount of interest of Rs.1,09,76,745/-. Finally, the ld.counsel submitted before us that the disallowance as made by the AO be ordered to be d…