Reliance Utility & Power 313 ITR 340 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Hero Cycle

323 ITR 158High Court2010#5352 most cited

What is Reliance Utility & Power 313 ITR 340 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Hero Cycle authority for?

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if the assessee has provided all relevant material and not concealed any inaccurate particulars of income, even if a claim is not sustainable in law. The Assessing Officer must properly verify the genuineness of claims.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Reliance Utility & Power · CIT v. Hero Cycle · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · assessment proceedings · Assessing Officer · verification of claims

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 68Section 10(34)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 143section 14section 143(3)total income

Judgments citing Reliance Utility & Power 313 ITR 340 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Hero Cycle

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.411/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–2(1), Nagpur v/s Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ……………. Respondent 469, Poonam Villa, New Colony Nagpur 440 013 PAN – AATPH2594R Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 21/01/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order date…

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.410/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur v/s Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani Respondent 469, Poonam Villa, New Colony Nagpur 440 013 PAN – AATPH2594R Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 21/01/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025 PER K.M. ROY, A.M. ORDER This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 31/10/2019, passed by…

SMT. TRUPTI H. SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (3), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/RJT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e assessee before the CIT(A) made contention that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied normally for making of claim which is not sustainable in law and thereby relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 323 ITR 158. From the perusal of the assessment order it can be seen that the Assessing Officer has not properly verified the genuineness of two gifts and the claim of cost of improvement as well as brokerage. This finding by the DCIT under Section 263 of the Act reiterate that the assessee has furnished all the relevant material at the time of assessment pr…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/952/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…a huge surplus fund of more than Rs. 96.56 crores, as brought out by the Ld. CIT(A), which is sufficient to cover investment of Rs. 8.88 crores and accordingly, in view of settled principle laid down in various judgements, like CIT vs. Hero Cycles, [2010] 323 ITR 158 (P&H); CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2104 366 ITR 505 (Bom) & (2016 383 ITR 589 (Bom,), no disallowance can be made. 19.1 In so far as what should be the reasonable basis for disallowance prior to the applicability of rule 80, we find that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 82,41,6101-, which are mostly from mutual funds. For deployment o…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRA!) -3 vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWE!L (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/930/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…a huge surplus fund of more than Rs. 96.56 crores, as brought out by the Ld. CIT(A), which is sufficient to cover investment of Rs. 8.88 crores and accordingly, in view of settled principle laid down in various judgements, like CIT vs. Hero Cycles, [2010] 323 ITR 158 (P&H); CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2104 366 ITR 505 (Bom) & (2016 383 ITR 589 (Bom,), no disallowance can be made. 19.1 In so far as what should be the reasonable basis for disallowance prior to the applicability of rule 80, we find that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 82,41,6101-, which are mostly from mutual funds. For deployment o…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-3 vs. GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/936/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…a huge surplus fund of more than Rs. 96.56 crores, as brought out by the Ld. CIT(A), which is sufficient to cover investment of Rs. 8.88 crores and accordingly, in view of settled principle laid down in various judgements, like CIT vs. Hero Cycles, [2010] 323 ITR 158 (P&H); CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2104 366 ITR 505 (Bom) & (2016 383 ITR 589 (Bom,), no disallowance can be made. 19.1 In so far as what should be the reasonable basis for disallowance prior to the applicability of rule 80, we find that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 82,41,6101-, which are mostly from mutual funds. For deployment o…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DECCAN FERRO ALLOYS PVT LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 238/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)

…f different High Courts which have decided the issue against the Revenue viz., (i) decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing Incl. in ITA No.970/2008, dated 2/4/2014 (ii) CIT vs. Hero Cycles Limited (2010) 323 ITR 158 (P & H High Court) and (iii) decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd (2014) 223 taxmann 130 (Guj.). These decisions reiterated that when an assessee had not earned any exempt income to be included in the total income, in the relevant AY in question corresponding expenditure could not be worked out for dis…

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA CAPITAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and C

ITA 5689/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarshri Ram Lal Negi & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth and Shri Jayesh Desai, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunathan Swami, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…d disallowed a reasonable amount CO No.122/Mum/2015 ITA No.5689/Mum/2015 TATA CAPITAL LTD. calculated as 20% of the salary and other overheads by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Reliance Utility & Power 313 ITR 340 (Bom-HC), CIT vs. Hero Cycle 323 ITR 158 (P&H), CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. (ITA No.1587 of 2009) [Guj HC]. The reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO and he calculated the disallowance u/s14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D at Rs.72,63,00,000/- and after allowing the deduction of suo motto disallowance of Rs.61,97,540/-, disallowed Rs.72,01,02,460/- and added to the t…

TATA CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and C

ITA 5615/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarshri Ram Lal Negi & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth and Shri Jayesh Desai, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunathan Swami, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…d disallowed a reasonable amount CO No.122/Mum/2015 ITA No.5689/Mum/2015 TATA CAPITAL LTD. calculated as 20% of the salary and other overheads by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Reliance Utility & Power 313 ITR 340 (Bom-HC), CIT vs. Hero Cycle 323 ITR 158 (P&H), CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. (ITA No.1587 of 2009) [Guj HC]. The reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO and he calculated the disallowance u/s14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D at Rs.72,63,00,000/- and after allowing the deduction of suo motto disallowance of Rs.61,97,540/-, disallowed Rs.72,01,02,460/- and added to the t…

TATA CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and C

ITA 2223/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarshri Ram Lal Negi & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth and Shri Jayesh Desai, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunathan Swami, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…d disallowed a reasonable amount CO No.122/Mum/2015 ITA No.5689/Mum/2015 TATA CAPITAL LTD. calculated as 20% of the salary and other overheads by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Reliance Utility & Power 313 ITR 340 (Bom-HC), CIT vs. Hero Cycle 323 ITR 158 (P&H), CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. (ITA No.1587 of 2009) [Guj HC]. The reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO and he calculated the disallowance u/s14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D at Rs.72,63,00,000/- and after allowing the deduction of suo motto disallowance of Rs.61,97,540/-, disallowed Rs.72,01,02,460/- and added to the t…

DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA CAPITAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and C

ITA 2178/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarshri Ram Lal Negi & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth and Shri Jayesh Desai, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunathan Swami, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…d disallowed a reasonable amount CO No.122/Mum/2015 ITA No.5689/Mum/2015 TATA CAPITAL LTD. calculated as 20% of the salary and other overheads by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Reliance Utility & Power 313 ITR 340 (Bom-HC), CIT vs. Hero Cycle 323 ITR 158 (P&H), CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. (ITA No.1587 of 2009) [Guj HC]. The reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO and he calculated the disallowance u/s14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D at Rs.72,63,00,000/- and after allowing the deduction of suo motto disallowance of Rs.61,97,540/-, disallowed Rs.72,01,02,460/- and added to the t…

JOHNSON & JOHNSON P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4253/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthydy. Commissioner Of In Come Tax Large Tax Payer Unit)-1, World Trade Centre, Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 ...... Appellant

For Respondent: S/Shri Anand Mohan&Azhar Zain
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…ons of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted. In 5 ITA NO.4253/MUM/2016(A.Y. 2008-09) support of his contentions ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 323 ITR 158(SC) (ii) DCIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank in ITA No.1990 & 1991/Mad/2011 A.Y 2006-07 and 2007-08 decided on 14/2/2013. 10.1 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further submitted that the issue whether profits of foreign branch are liable to be taxed in India is a debatable issue. The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Es…

SUBHSH GHAI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

ITA 3766/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Subhash Ghai Acit- 11(1) 6, Bashiron, T.P.S, 29Th Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400050. Pan: Aafpg8264K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rahul K. Hakani (Ar) Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Sr. Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K. Hakani (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…officer is expected to re-compute the amount of disallowance under section 14 A of the Act only in a situation where he is not satisfied with the correctness of the amounts/claim of assessee. Our view file supported from decision in CIT versus Hero Cycle Ltd 323 ITR 158(P&H), Reliance Utility and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340(Bombay), DCIT versus Jindal Photo Ltd( Delhi Trib) and Shiva Industries & Holding Ltd versus ACIT(2011) 59 DTR 182. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Reliance Utility and Power Ltd categorically held that if interest free funds are available with the assessee, which are sufficient to make th…

SAHIWAL INVESTMENT & TRADING CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4913/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 32Section 50

…he particulars as furnished by the assessee remained the same. It is only the difference in inference as made by each authorities in a different manner. The Ld. AR relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 323 ITR 158 (SC). 10. The Ld. DR relied upon the Penalty Order and the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR also relied upon the following decisions: i. UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 295 ITR 244 (SC) ii. R L Traders vs. ITO 2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT iii CIT vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. 315 ITR 460 (…

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RAVI SANCHETI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1061/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 May 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik(JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…Your honour would appreciate that since all the details in respect of sale of flats were disclosed in return of income itself, there was no concealment of income on the part of appellant. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products reported in 323 ITR 158 (SC) has held that “ S. 271 (1) (c) applies where the assessee “has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. The present was not a case of concealment of the income. As regards the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, no information given in the Return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. T…

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE SCOTTISH ASSAM (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 2725/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

…Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. b. ACIT v/s Eicher Ltd [Reported in 101 TT) 309 (Del)] c. Wimco Seedlings Ltd vs DCIT referred in 293 ITR (A.T) 0216,ITAT Delhi d. Thacker and Co Ltd vs ITO referred in 290 ITR (A.T) 0154, ITAT Delhi e. CIT vs Hero Cycles 323 ITR 158 (PH) f. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (ITA No 1398 of 2008 order dated 09.01.2009 of Hon'ble Bombay High Court) g. East India Pharmaceutical Works 224 ITR 627. h. Assessee's own case (Reported in ITAT No.2638/Kol/2004,dt.28/07/2005 for the assessment Year 2001-02. i. REI Agro Ltd [ITA No 1331/Kol/2011 & ITA No 1423/Kol/2011 dated 19/06/2013] 4.…

ITO 10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JPA SOLUTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12 Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1), M/S Jpa Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Room No.408, 4Th Floor, 102, Man Gouse, S.V. Road, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (West), Vs. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400056 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aabcj7151K

Section 14A

…re-compute the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act only in a situation where he is not satisfied with the correctness of 5 M/s JPA Solutions Pvt. Ltd. the accounts/claim of the assessee. My view find support from the decision in CIT vs Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 158 (P & H), Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), DCIT vs Jindal Photo Ltd. (Del. Trib.) and Shiva Industries & Holdings Ltd. vs ACIT (2011) 59 DTR 182. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. categorically held that if interest free funds are available with the assessee, which are sufficient to meet…

URMILA BHABERA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5177/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Mrs. Urmila Bhabhera, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 901/902, Shanghvi Villa, S. Income Tax -20(3), Mumbai, 5Th V. Road, Andheri (W), Room No.506, Floor, Mumbai 400 058 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aajpb 6192K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143Section 271

…onstitute that any details supplied by the assessee before the Assessing Officer are not accurate and penalty can be levied. Our this view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 323 ITR 158. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of the learned CIT (A). Consequently, the penalty levied on the assessee is deleted. Resultantly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/8/2016. (JASON P. BOAZ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, D…

SANJEEV S RENIWAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1486/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Rakesh S Reniwal, Acit, 156, Maker Chamber Vi, Central Circle-38, बनाम/ 220 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpa4201N Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Rajeev S Reniwal, Acit, 156, Maker Chamber Vi, Central Circle-38, बनाम/ 220 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Admpr3334D Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 14A

…d to re-compute the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act only in a situation where he is not satisfied with the correctness of the accounts/claim of the assessee. My view find support from the decision in CIT Rakesh S. Reniwal & Ors. vs Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 158 (P & H), Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), DCIT vs Jindal Photo Ltd. (Del. Trib.) and Shiva Industries & Holdings Ltd. vs ACIT (2011) 59 DTR 182. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. categorically held that if interest free funds are available with the assessee, which are sufficient to meet…

RAJEEV S RENIWAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1485/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Rakesh S Reniwal, Acit, 156, Maker Chamber Vi, Central Circle-38, बनाम/ 220 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpa4201N Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Rajeev S Reniwal, Acit, 156, Maker Chamber Vi, Central Circle-38, बनाम/ 220 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Admpr3334D Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 14A

…d to re-compute the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act only in a situation where he is not satisfied with the correctness of the accounts/claim of the assessee. My view find support from the decision in CIT Rakesh S. Reniwal & Ors. vs Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 158 (P & H), Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), DCIT vs Jindal Photo Ltd. (Del. Trib.) and Shiva Industries & Holdings Ltd. vs ACIT (2011) 59 DTR 182. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. categorically held that if interest free funds are available with the assessee, which are sufficient to meet…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2