Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT

390 ITR 271High Court2017#3519 most cited

What is Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

State tax paid in a foreign country is not allowable as a deduction when computing total world income. Foreign tax credit can be claimed only as per the prescribed procedure, not as an expenditure.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v CIT · foreign tax · state tax deduction · total world income · section 91 · foreign tax credit · expenditure · Bombay High Court

Also reported as

76 Taxmann.com 257

Sections most often in play

Section 10AASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 37(1)Section 90Section 91Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 10(4)section 2(43)section 115wasection 90(1)(b)section 115wsection 90(1)foreign tax creditsection 91section 40(a)(ii)real income theorysection 90acomputer software

Judgments citing Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Onmobile Global Ltd., Vs. The Asstt./Deputy Tower # 1, 94/1C & 94/2, Commissioner of Income Tax, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Circle 5(1)(2), Anekal Taluk, Electronics City, Bengaluru. Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. PAN: AAACO 3900E ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.07.20…

Virmati Software & Telecommunication Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1826/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1826/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Virmati Software & Telecommunication The D.C.I.T., Ltd., Vs. Circle-4(1)(2) No.9, Garden View Corporates, Ahmedabad. Opp. Auda Garden, Sindhu Bhavan Road, Near Global Hospital, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aaacv6480G

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 37Section 91

…as paid in the course of the business and the corresponding business receipts were made to tax in India. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Infra Structure Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 390 ITR 271 wherein it was held as under: Therefore, to the extent the payment of tax in Saudi Arabia on income which has arisen/accrued in India has to be considered in the nature of expenditure incurred or arisen to earn income and not hit by the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. In view of the above we hold that the assessee is eligible for dedu…

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A No.2556/Bang/2019 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Wipro Limited 76R & 80P, Doddakannellii Deputy Commissioner of Sarjapur Road Income-tax Vs. Bangalore 560 035 Circle-7(1)(2) Bangalore PAN NO : AAACW0387R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. AR Respondent by : Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, AC…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1650/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Nariman Point ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACR4849R v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Large Taxpayer Unit–1, Mumbai ITA No. 1054/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Large Taxpayer Unit–1, Mumbai v/s Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Nariman Poi…

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…deduction in the nature of an expenditure incurred wholly :- 19 -: ITA-TP No.198/Hyd/2021 and exclusively for the purpose of the business is no more res integra in light of hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 271 (Bom) wherein their lordships hold in very clear terms that Section 40(a)(ii) does not cover the same. We find in this factual backdrop that this tribunal’s co- ordinate bench decision in DCIT Vs. Elitecore Technologies Private Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 153 (Ahd) has distinguished the foregoing judicial precedent to conclude that the same is not a bind…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 869/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 90Section 90nSection 91

…in respect of which the assessee has not been granted any tax credit. 76. We find that this issue is squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by a judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Limited Vs CIT [(2016) 390 ITR 271 (Bom)], wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: (i) We have considered the rival submissions. So far as the question relating to the Tribunal not following its order in the case of the applicant itself for A.Y. 1979-80, we find that there is a justification for the same. This is so as the decision of this Court in S. Inde…

M/S Ittiam Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee allowed for assessment year 2014-15 for statistical purposes

ITA 2464/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri A.C Suresh Muthukrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…gn taxes paid under section 37(1) read with section 40(a)(ii) of the Act to the extent relief of FTC is denied to the Appellant having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. reported in 390 ITR 271. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered.” Asst.Yr.2014-15 “1. That the learned CIT[A] erred on facts and in law in restricting the claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) to Rs.71,11,538/- as against Rs.2,36,78,371/- cl…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3389/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…e Act. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 (ITA No. 5713/M/2016). Further, the Ld. counsel relies mainly on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT (390 ITR 271) and the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 (ITA 5713/M/2016) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the reason that he has followed the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 and has decided the issue against the assessee. 6. We…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3262/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…e Act. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 (ITA No. 5713/M/2016). Further, the Ld. counsel relies mainly on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT (390 ITR 271) and the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 (ITA 5713/M/2016) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the reason that he has followed the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 and has decided the issue against the assessee. 6. We…

Virmati Software & Telecommunication Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1135/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1135/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Virmati Software & Telecommunication D.C.I.T, Limited, Vs. Cirle-4(1)(2) A-2/3, Arjun Tower, Ahmedabad. Satellite Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380 015. Pan: Aaacv6480G

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 234ASection 271Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 91

…wed to the assessee then the same should be allowed as an expense under section 37(1) of the Act. The learned AR in support of his contention relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd versus CIT reported in 390 ITR 271 . 14. On the other hand the learned DR before us submitted that the assessee is not entitled for the relief under section 91 of the Act with respect to the TDS deducted by the parties based in the foreign countries. As per the learned DR, there can be a possibility that the assessee has claimed the refund against such TDS certificate in the fore…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu -1, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5713/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 10ASection 115JSection 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

…ment year 2005–06, the Tribunal in ITA no.7513/Mum./ 2010, dated 4th September 2015, has decided the issue against the assessee, however, by virtue of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v/s CIT, [2017] 390 ITR 271 (Bom.), the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee. 5. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, the decision in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case as the taxes levied by Saudi Ara…

Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3802/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tata Motors Ltd. The Commissioner Of Bombay House, 24, Homi Vs. Income-Tax (Ltu), 29Th Mody Street, Hutatma Floor, Centre 1, World Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaact2727Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath K., Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath K., DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

…ile computing book profit as per section 115JB of the Act. Tata Motors Ltd. 8 4.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the CIT was not justified in ignoring the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 390 ITR 271 (Bom) dated 20.12.2016 and following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Elitecore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Further, it is stated that the Circular No. 14/2006 dated 28.12.2006 issued by CBDT clarifies the issue to prevent the claim of double benefits by taxpayers on foreign tax credit. Again it is reiterated that no revisionary procee…

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. (T.P) A. No.799/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/s. Infosys Limited, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100. …. Appellant. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 11, Bangalore. ….. Respondent. I.T. (T.P) A. No.942/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore-560 100. ….. Respondent. Assessee By : Shri H.N. Khincha, C.A. Revenue By : Shri…

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 102/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92ASection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. (T.P) A. No.102/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) M/s. Infosys Limited, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100. …. Appellant. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 11, Bangalore. ….. Respondent. I.T. (T.P) A. No.233/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore-560 100. ….. Respondent. Assessee By : Shri H.N. Khincha, C.A. Revenue By : Shri R…