Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1060 (2.66 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Public Utilities Investment Trust Ltd. on 18 March, 1970

Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd.,, vs Assessee on 10 March, 2016

Though the decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) was in connection with the disallowance to be computed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, in respect of interest expenditure being relatable to the interest-free advances made by the person, and whether the same is to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) drew simile from the said proposition and held that the ratio laid down therein is to applied while computing disallowance under section 14A of the A ct. We have already referred to the ratio laid down by 9 ITA No s.758 to 760/PN/2014 Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) in the paras hereinabove and have held that in respect of investments made by the assessee in the preceding year of Rs.4.20 crores, in view of the income generated in the year and interest-free funds available, no disallowance is to be merited.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shapoorji Pallanji And Company P.Ltd, ... vs Addl Cit Rg 3(3), Mumbai on 3 March, 2017

In view of the same and also keeping reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation v CIT (298 ITR 298) and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] & also the jurisdictional ITA T, Mumbai in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. v DCIT (ITA No. 3082/Mum/2006 dated 28/05/2012), I consider it proper and appropriate to hold that the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs.34,01,095/- in the given facts of the case is completely unjustified and incorrect. In view of the same, the addition so made by the A. 0. is deleted. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 45 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Sharada Erectors Private Limited, Pune on 24 March, 2026

35. Since the own capital, free reserves and non-interest bearing funds available with the assessee are far more than the interest free loans and advances given to the directors and sister concerns, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (supra), no disallowance is called for. Since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has followed the said decision while deleting the disallowance, therefore, in absence of any distinguishable features brought before us by the Ld. DR, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleting the addition / disallowance on merit. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are also dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs Jcit, Kota on 27 September, 2017

31. During the course of hearing, ld. AR reiterated its submissions as made in respect of ground no. 2 as discussed supra. It was further submitted that the disallowances made of interest on the alleged borrowings utilized for capital investment, our contentions can better be understood by referring to the facts involved and the decision rendered in the case of CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Mum), which is also a case where for making capital investment in the shares of two companies, disallowance was made. It was held that "The facts of that case were that the Assessee viz.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt.Ltd,, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 March, 2018

In other words, presumption laid down in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) is with regard to investment in tax free securities coming out of assessee's own funds. In case, they were in excess to investments made in securities, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee had borrowed certain funds on interest, the said proposition was applicable while applying provisions of section 14A of the Act. In the facts of the case before the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee had paid interest on borrowed funds and had claimed the deduction thereof. However, the assessee did not disallow any expenditure on the income earned on tax free securities on the ground that the said investment was made out of its tax free funds available. Thus, no disallowance was to be made on the expenditure claimed as interest paid on borrowed funds. The Hon'ble High Court also laid down the principle vis-à-vis effect of decision of jurisdictional High Court and coordinate Tribunals and the authorities thereunder.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, vs Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd.,, ... on 30 November, 2018

14. Both sides heard. Orders of the Authorities below perused. The ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised in the present appeal is with respect to disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) while granting relief to the assessee has observed that own funds of the assessee are much more than the advances made by assessee to various parties including its subsidiaries. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has granted relief to the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra.). We do not find any error in the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in deleting the disallowance made u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised in appeal by Revenue is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs A.C.I.T.Rg.11(1), Mumbai on 16 May, 2018

86. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessment Year under consideration is 2009-10 and the Provisions of Rule 8D will apply. The Assessing Officer invoking the provision of the Rule 8D u/s 14A made disallowance of ₹.4,41,622/- which was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). The said disallowance comprises of ₹.1,53,080/- under Rule 8D 2(ii) and ₹.2,88,542/- under Rule 8D 2(iii). In so far as interest under Rule 8D 2(ii) is concerned we observe that the assessee is having sufficient own funds to make investments, assessee is having much more own funds than the investments. Therefore, the presumption is that the assessee made investment from out of his own funds not from borrowed funds. Hence we respectfully following the 51 ITA.No. 1865 & 1464 /MUM/2009 ITA.No. 2594 TO 2596, 6857 & 2747/MUM/2011 ITA.No. 6298 & 2626/MUM/2012 M/s. S.P. Corporation decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. HDFC Bank (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made under Rule 8D2(ii). In so far as the Rule 8D 2(iii) is concerned no convincing arguments have been made either before the lower authorities or before us, hence the same is sustained. Therefore, grounds raised by the assessee on the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D are partly allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 44 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Uti Bank Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 28 October, 2015

4. In our opinion the Tribunal has committed no error. Basically the entire disallowance has been made on the basis of facts emerging on record. The Tribunal also relied on the I.T.A Nos. 152 & 2572/Ahd/2006 & 65/Ahd/2009 A.Y. 2002-03,04-05 & 05-06 Page No 20 UTI Bank Ltd vs. ACIT decision of the Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340. Additionally, we find that the Assessing Officer had, without giving a finding as to how much administrative expenditure have been incurred to earn the exempt income, had made disallowance. In the earlier years also, similar position obtained. That being the fact, no question of law arises.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next