CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co.

CHIMANLAL MANEKLAL SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…ioner of Income-tax, Co. Circle III(4), Chennai (79\ntaxmann.com 158) etc. Regarding assessee's contention that the\nassessee's own funds and other non interest bearing funds were more\nthan investment in shares, he placed reliance on CIT vs. V.I.Baby & Co.\n(254 ITR 248),Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs CIT 193 ITR 344 (Ori) etc.\nConsequently, he worked put disallowance of in terms of Rule 8D\nclauses(ii) and (iii) of Rs.14,88,472/- and Rs 5,23,647 respectively. The\nld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made, placing reliance on the case of\nGodrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT &Anr., (2010) 328 ITR 0081, the\nHon'ble…

DCIT,CC 4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. KUKREJA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5766/Mum./2017 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Range–4, Mumbai v/s Kukreja Development Corporation 4th & 5th Floor, Sai Commercial Building …………….Respondent B.K.S. Devshi Marg, Mumbai 400 088 PAN – AABFK0411A Assessee by : Shri Harsh M. Kapadia Revenue by : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Date of Hearing – 25/08/2022 Date of Order – 17/11/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal ha…

NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED (ON BEHALF OF MERGED ENTITY VADINAR OIL TERMINAL LIMITED) ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.777/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nayara Energy Ltd (On Acit, Central Circle-2(1) बिधम/ Behalf Of Merged Entity Room No. 804, Pratishtha Vs. Vadinar Oil Terminal Ltd) Bhavan, Old Cgo 5Th Floor, Jet Airways Annexe, M. K. Road, Godrej Bkc, G- Block, Plot Mumbai-400020. C-68, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2626D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 36(1) (Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act The Act - Rs.149.80 Crores 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) & Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.149.80 Crores Pertaining To Loans Of Rs.1253.53 Crores Granted To Related Parties Contending Them To Be Interest Free Without Appreciating The Fact, That Out Of The Total Amount, Only Security Deposits Of Rs.96.53 Crores Are Interest Free Refundable

…er section 36(1)(m) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The plain language of section 36(4) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, militates against the submissions urged on behalf of the assessee.” The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C.IT. vs. V. I. Baby & Co. 254 ITR 248 has held that the disallowance on account of proportionate interest was proper. In the above case the assessee had given advances to partners, their relatives and sister concerns. The assessee had made the above investments in sister concerns and was not charging any interest. The Hon'ble High Court held that the assessee with liquidity cannot cl…

EDELWEISS FINANCAIL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…of his order had accepted to the fact that assessee had sufficient interest free surplus balance to the extent of Rs.12,245 Crores. However, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. VI Baby & Co., reported in 254 ITR 248 wherein it was held that in case if the assessee is having sufficient interest free funds then there was no need for it to make any borrowings and pay interest on such borrowings. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in plethora of cases in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd., re…

EDELWEISS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…of his order had accepted to the fact that assessee had sufficient interest free surplus balance to the extent of Rs.12,245 Crores. However, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. VI Baby & Co., reported in 254 ITR 248 wherein it was held that in case if the assessee is having sufficient interest free funds then there was no need for it to make any borrowings and pay interest on such borrowings. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in plethora of cases in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd., re…

EDELWEISS FINANACIAL SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…of his order had accepted to the fact that assessee had sufficient interest free surplus balance to the extent of Rs.12,245 Crores. However, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. VI Baby & Co., reported in 254 ITR 248 wherein it was held that in case if the assessee is having sufficient interest free funds then there was no need for it to make any borrowings and pay interest on such borrowings. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in plethora of cases in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd., re…