DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. M/S. WELSPUN ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 1677/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax against M/s Welspun Enterprises Limited, concerning various assessment years. The primary issues revolved around the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and disallowances related to section 14A concerning tax-exempt income. The tribunal consolidated the appeals due to common grounds and facts across the years. The tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents set in previous years' assessments and rulings by higher courts, leading to a consistent application of legal principles across similar cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781394 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs Asphalt India Corp [2024] 167 taxmann.com 460 (Bom), Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-18 & 19, Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd. in ITA No. 4439/ (Mum.) of 2013, PCIT vs HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd (ITXA No.1672 of 2016) dated 4th February 2019, CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC), CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom), CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom), CIT vs Tingri Tea Co. Ltd. (79 ITR 294), Meenakshi Synthetics (P) Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT (84 ITD 563)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN KANTI DATTA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSH KAPADIA; AJAY NAGPAL
• Keywords: Proportionate interest; TDS; Earning of tax free income; Notional interest; Validity of assessment; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 115JB; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1762/MUM/2025 (AY: 2013-14) ITA No. 1763/MUM/2025 (AY: 2014-15) ITA No. 1675/MUM/2025 (AY: 2016-17) ITA No. 1676/MUM/2025 (AY: 2017-18) ITA No. 1677/MUM/2025 (AY: 2018-19) ITA No. 1678/MUM/2025 (AY: 2020-21) (Physical hearing) Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax (Central Circle)-3(3), Mumbai Room No.404, Kautilya Bhavan BKC, Mumbai-400 051 Vs M/s Welspun Enterprises Limited 4th Floor, Welspun House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Delisle Road S.O. Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AABCM4107C Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri Harsh Kapadia & Ajay Nagpal Advocates Revenue by Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT-DR Date of Institution 13.03.2025 Date of hearing 23.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH ; 1. This group of six appealsby revenue aredirected against the order of ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-017, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. In all appeals, the revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Certain facts in all appeals are common. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, all the appeals were clubbed together, heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. With the consent of parties, appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 is initially treated as lead case. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 2 “1. \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CITIA) erred in restricting the addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the 30% of the total purchases amounting to Rs. 26,21,562/- as against 100% disallowance mandated in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and doing so, failed to appreciate that disallowance 30% is applicable only from 01.04.2015 and onwards.\" 2. \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) erred in restricting disallowance made under section. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent of tax exempt income earned during the year by overlooking the clarification of legislative intent provided by the CBDT vide Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and to this effect even an amendment was made by Finance Act, 2022 by way of insertion of Explanation to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to exclude investment that did not generate exempt income during the year while recalculating disallowance under Rule SD() of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by overlooking the clarification of legislative intent provided by the CHDT vide Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014..\" 4. \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CITIA) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,04,876/-on account of interest free loan without appreciating the fact that the assessee has given interest free loans and advance to its associate concerns and failed to prove the business exigency of the such advances, 5. \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,20,06,756/-towards interest expenses for 'long outstanding interest free loans extended to associated concems' while assessee has incurred large interest expenses to banks during the year under consideration. 6. \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the book profit of the assessee without appreciating the provisions of clause (f) of explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai 'F' Bench in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-18 & 19, Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd. in ITA No. 4439/ (Mum.) of 2013.\" 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Counsel/ authorized representative (ld Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 3 AR) for assessee submits that majority of grounds of appeal in all the appeals are covered in favour of assessee either in assessee’s own case or in case of decision of High Courts or Hon’ble Apex Court. The Ld.AR of the assessee further submits that ground No.1,which relates to disallowance / addition under section 40(a)(ia), though this ground of appeal is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13, however, he fairly accepts that there is a decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court against the assessee in case of PCIT vs Asphalt India Corp [2024] 167 taxmann.com 460 (Bom) wherein it was held that proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is prospective and applicable form AY 2015-16 and the Hon’ble Bench may take decision accordingly. 3. On the other hand, the Ld.Senior DR for the revenue supported the order of AO and would submit that Ld.CIT(A) while restricting the disallowance to the extent 30% of total disallowance made by AO for the want of TDS, failed to appreciate that benefit of 30% disallowance as per the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only from 1.4.2015 onwards. 4. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that AO while passing the assessment order made disallowance of Rs.26,21,562/- by taking view that assessee made payment of certain expenses under the head, professional fees, rent, consultancy and work contract without making TDS. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted such disallowance to the extent of 30% of total disallowance. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee fairly accepted that Proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is prospective and is applicable Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 4 from A.Y. 2015-16 as has been held by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs Asphalt India Corp (supra). Thus, respectfully following the decision of jurisdictional High Court, the decision of Ld.CIT(A) is reversed and the order of AO is restored on this issue. In the result, ground 1 of the revenue is allowed. 5. Ground No.2, 3 & 6 of the appeal relate to disallowance u/s 14A and adjustment of book profit under section 115JB(2) of the Act. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any findings with respect to restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income and as such the ground by department is not available to the revenue.He further submitted that in any case, it is settled that any disallowance that is to be made under section 14A of the Act, must be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee and for this proposition, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd (ITXA No.1672 of 2016) dated 4th February 2019. The Ld.AR of the assessee further submitted that the amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 by way of insertion of Explanation to section 14A of Act, 1961 has been held to be prospective in nature by the decisions in the case of PCIT vs ERA Infrastructure (India) Ltd 448 ITR 674 (Del) and in assessee’s own case reported ITA No.32137/Mum/2021. Against ground No.3& 6, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd (165 ITD 27), wherein it was held the investment which yielded exempt income is to be Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 5 considered for making disallowance. The Ld.AR further submits that the Ld.CIT(A), too, has merely followed the decision of the Special Bench and thus, it was submitted that no interference should be called for. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Senior departmental representative (Sr DR) for the revenue supported the order of AO. The Ld. Sr.DR for revenue submits that the deletion of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(ii) of the Act was incorrect. There is no clarity from the facts or from the financial statement furnished by assessee that assessee made investments from interest free funds available with the assessee or from borrowed funds. The assessee is regularly borrowing the interest bearing funds. Similarly, there is regular investments for earning exempt income, however, the interest free funds is almost intact. The assessee was required to give clear bifurcation of interest free funds and the investments made by them for earning exempt income. The assessee is taking double benefit by keeping the interest free funds as intact and debiting interest on interest bearing borrowing. 7. In short rejoinder submissions, the Ld.AR of the assessee submits that Sr DR for revenue agreed with the assessee’s contention that interest free funds were available with assessee. Once it is proved that interest free funds is available with the assessee, which are sufficient to meet the investments made, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of interest free fund generated or available with the assessee. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that this argument of the Ld.DR for revenuedeserves to be rejected for the following reasons: - Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 6 - The Department's appeal has not raised any ground challenging the deletion of disallowance under section 14A rw Rule 8D(2)(ii). Only ground raised is with respect to Rule 8D(2)(iii) Therefore, deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by CIT(A) cannot be disturbed. Without prejudice, both on facts as well as on law, no interference is called for. The Ld.AR of the assessee further submits that this issue is well settledin CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and several others.The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the consistent view taken by our courts is that if the funds available with the assessee are both interest free and interest bearing, then presumption would arise, that investment would be out of interest free funds available with the company. There is no need to separately identify as to whether investments were in fact made from own funds. The presumption will establish this fact. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that AO made disallowance u der section 14A of Rs.1.28 crores by invoking the formula prescribed in Rule 8D. Assessing Officer recorded that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.1.07 crores which is claimed as exempt. The assessee was asked to explain as to why disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D should not be made. The assessee filed its reply dated 27/01/2016. In the reply, the assessee submitted that opening balance of investment was Rs.63.27 lakhs, the assessee made investment of Rs.1.15 crores during the year, thus, closing balance of investment for earning exempt income is of Rs.1.78 crores. The addition of investment of Rs.1.15 crores is from sale consideration received on account of slump sale. The assessee also furnished working of suo motu disallowance in his reply. The reply of assessee was not accepted by A.O. The AO invoked the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 7 provisions of Rule 8D and made disallowance of Rs. 1.28 Crore, which consist of disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) of Rs. 96.43 lakhs and Rule 8D(iii) of Rs. 31.63 lakhs. No disallowance of Rule 8D(i) was added. Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that assessee is having interest free funds available with the assessee to the tune of Rs.485.15 Crore thus, no interest disallowance is justified. To support their submission assessee relied on various case laws of various higher Courts.The ld CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rule 8D(ii) and restricted the disallowances under Rule 8D (iii) to the extent of 0.5% of average investment which actually yielded exempt income. The ld CIT(A) held that when interest free funds were available with the assessee sufficient to meet the investment made, then presumption would arise that investment is from interest free funds generated / available with the assessee. 9. We find that Ld.CIT(A) while allowing relief to the assessee noted that undisputed fact is that assessee company has made significant investments in assets generating exempt income, necessitating continuous monitoring and strategic decision-making, which requires substantial time and effort from the management and top executives. Hence, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is justified. However, the jurisdictional Bombay High Court, (1) HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), has held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) is warranted if the assessee’s surplus funds exceed the investments in shares. Further, Ahmadabad Tribunal in assesses group companies such as Welspun Corp Ltd., Welspun Steel Ltd., Welspun India Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 8 Ltd., and AYM Syntex Ltd., has consistently held that disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) is unwarranted when investments are made from surplus funds. Accordingly, the disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) was deleted. With respect to Rule 8D(iii) providing for calculation of expenses @ 0.5% of the average investments, the Ld. CIT(A) held that Special Bench in Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (165 ITD 27) has held that only those investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant financial year should be included in the computation of disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii).Thus, he directed the AO to exclude those investments which did not generate exempt income during the year while recalculating the disallowance under Rule 8D(iii)and allowed part relief to the assessee. 10. On independent consideration of facts, we find that Ld.CIT(A) while allowing relief to the assessee has followed the decision of jurisdictional High Court of Special Bench of Tribunal. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of Ld.CIT(A). In the result, ground Nos 2 & 3 are dismissed. So far as ground No.6 is concerned, which relates to adding the disallowance of 14A to the book profit, we find that Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in Vireet Investments P Ltd (supra) held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB (2), is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under section 14A read with rule 8D. Hence ground No.6 also is also dismissed. 11. Ground 4 relates to deleting the addition of Rs.18,04,786/- on account of interest disallowance. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Ahmadabad Bench of Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 9 the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No.1468/Ahd/2017).There is no variation in the facts for the year under consideration. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that that the consistent view taken by various higher courts that if funds available with the assessee are both of interest free and interest bearing, then a presumption would arise that interest free advances to the associate entities would be out of interest free funds available with the company. There is no need to separately identify as to whether advances were in fact made from own funds. To support his submission, the Ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC)& CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) HDFC Bank Ltd vs DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom).The Ld.CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee on appreciation of fact that interest free fund available were sufficient to meet the interest free loans an advances given to associate concern. 12. On the other hand, the Ld.Senior DR for the revenue supported the order of AO. 13. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. We find that during assessment, the AO issued show cause notice to justify the interest free advances given to associate concern and to furnish the details thereof and as to why proportionate interest @12% should not be disallowed. The assessee filed its reply and furnished required details vide reply dated 15-01-2016. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 10 assessee also furnished details of interest free advances given associate concern, i.e. Devas Bhopal Corridors Pvt Ltd was given Rs. 16.91 Crore and MSK Project (Kin Mandvi Corridor) Pvt Ltd was given Rs.1.23 Crore. The AO worked out interest addition @12%. Before Ld.CIT(A) the assessee submitted that assessee has given interest free advances to associate concern for business expediency. The assessee has shareholders’ funds to the extent of Rs. 485.15 crores. The interest free advances were made in 0.25% only. The assessee has deep interest in its subsidiary. Assessee is a holding company of subsidiaries. We find that Ld.CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee by taking view that the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to advance to its subsidiaries or sister concerns as part of its normal business operations. In previous assessment years (2009-2010 and 2012- 2013), the Tribunal in their own case, held that when an assessee has adequate interest-free funds, no disallowance of interest is warranted for interest-free advances made to associate concerns. The Tribunal further held that disallowing interest based on outstanding debts in the names of associate concerns resulting from business transactions was unjustified. It was held that the facts of the year under consideration are aligning with those of the earlier years. On independent verification of facts we find that ld CIT(A) after examining the financial position and keeping in view that the interest free funds are in far excess to meet the requirement of landing interest free funds to its subsidiaries and also followed the decisions of Tribunal in assesses own case for earlier years, thus, we do not find any Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 11 infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A), which we affirmed. In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 14. Ground 5 of the appeal relates to deleting the additions of interest expenses of Rs.4.20 Crore. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that this ground of appeal is also covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2012- 13 (ITA No.1468/Ahd/2017).The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the principle of law is well settled that when consistent view taken by Higher Courts is that if there are funds available with the assessee are both interest free and interest bearing, then a presumption would arise, that interest free advances to the associate entities would be out of interest free funds available with the company. There is no need to separately identify as to whether advances were in fact made from own funds. To support his submissions he relied on the decisions on which he relied on ground No 3 & 4. 15. On the other hand, the ld Sr DR for the revenue supported the order of AO and adopted same submissions as made in support of ground No. 3 &4. 16. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that during assessment the AO asked the assessee to furnish the details of outstanding loan to its associate concern. The assessee in response to such show cause notice filed its reply dated 15.01.2016 and furnished required details. The details provided by assessee are recorded in para 7.2 of assessment order, wherein the assessee submitted the details of loan to its sister concern and Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 12 joint ventures aggregating of Rs. 35.00 Crore. The AO worked out disallowance of Rs. 4.20 crore as per his working in para 7.3 of his order by taking view that assessee failed to prove the business exigency. The AO worked out interest @12% on the amount of long outstand loan to its subsidiary. Before ld CIT(A) the assessee made similar submissions as made before us and relied on various case laws. The ld CIT(A) on considering the submissions of assessee deleted the entire disallowances of such interest addition in para 10.4.1 to 10.4.3 by taking view that these loans were given in the ordinary course of business and directly contributed to the profit and loss account, thereby established business exigency. Disallowance of interest requires a clear finding that borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes, which was not established in this case. The assessee maintained that the debts were fully covered by its substantial interest-free funds, including shareholders’ funds amounting to Rs.485.15 Crore compared to debts of Rs.35.00 crore, thus the ld CIT(A) also relied on the decisions in in CIT v. Tingri Tea Co. Ltd. (79 ITR 294) and Meenakshi Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (84 ITD 563). 17. It was also held that assessee emphasized that the issue of interest disallowance on alleged interest-free advances to associated concerns had already been examined in earlier assessment years by the Tribunal. In the assessment years 2009-2010 and 2012-2013, the Tribunal had conclusively held that when an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, no disallowance of interest is warranted, even if advances were made to associated concerns, it was held that the advances in question were made Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 13 during the ordinary course of business and were adequately covered by the assesses substantial interest-free funds, such as shareholders’ funds and accumulated profits.The Tribunal further observed that the AO had failed to establish a direct nexus between the borrowed funds and the advances to associated concerns. The Tribunal relied on established judicial principles, which mandate that in the absence of clear evidence linking borrowed funds to non-business purposes, no disallowance can be justified. Consequently, the additions made by the AO in those years were deleted. The ld CIT(A) held that from the details submitted, it is seen that the assessee company had sufficient interest-free funds, which it could use in the normal course of its business to advance to its associate concerns. In assesses own case for the previous assessment years (2009-2010 and 2012-2013) it was held by Tribunal that no disallowance of interest is warranted when the assessee has adequate interest-free funds, even if advances are made to associate concerns. Since the facts of the instant year are identical to those in the previous assessment years (2009-2010 and 2012-2013), the action of the AO in disallowing the notional interest of Rs.4. 20 crore is not sustainable. On independent consideration of facts we find that the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is in fact covered against the revenue, hence, we affirm the order of ld CIT(A). in the result, this ground of appeal is allowed. 18. In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed. ITA No.1763/Mum/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 14 19. Grounds 1& 2 of this appeal relates to restricting the disallowance of section 40(a)(ia) to the extent of 30%. We find that this ground of appeal is identical to the ground of appeal for AY 2013-14, which we have allowed in favour of the revenue, thus these grounds of appeal are allowed with similar directions. 20. Ground 3, 4 & 7 relates to disallowance under section14A and adding to book profit. We find that these grounds of appeal are identical with ground No. 2, 3 & 6 in appeal for AY 2013-14, which we have dismissed. Thus, following the principal of consistency, these grounds of appeal are dismissed with similar direction. 21. Ground 5, relates to deleting the addition of interest free loan on the advances given to sister concern. We find that this ground of appeal is similar to the ground No. 4 in appeal for AY 2013-14, which we have already dismissed. Thus, following the principal of consistency, this ground of appeal is dismissed with similar direction. 22. Ground 6 of revenue’s appeal pertains to deletion of addition of Rs.31,672/- on account of interest free expenses. We find that this ground of appeal is similar to the ground No. 5 in appeal for AY 2013-14, which we have already dismissed. Thus, following the principal of consistency, this ground of appeal is dismissed with similar direction. 23. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. ITA No.1675/Mum/2025 (2016-17) 24. Ground 1 & 2 relates to disallowance under section14A and Ground No.4 adding the disallowance to book profit. We find that these grounds of appeal Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 15 are identical with ground No. 2, 3 & 6 in appeal for AY 2013-14, which we have dismissed. Thus, following the principal of consistency, these grounds of appeal are dismissed with similar direction. 25. Ground 3, relates to deleting the addition of interest free loan on the advances given to sister concern. We find that this ground of appeal is similar to the ground No. 4 in appeal for AY 2013-14, which we have already dismissed. Thus, following the principal of consistency, this ground of appeal is dismissed with similar direction. 26. In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed. ITA No.1676/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 27. Grounds 1, 2 & 5 in this appeal pertain to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) and making adjustment in book profit under section 115JB. We find that these grounds are identical to ground 2, 3 & 6 in appeal for AY 2013-14 in ITA No.1762/Mum/2025, which we have already dismissed. Therefore, following the principal of consistency these grounds of appeal are dismissed with similar directions. 28. Ground 3 & 4 in this appeal is identical to ground 4& 5 in appeal for AY 2013-14 in ITA No.1675/Mum/2925, which we have already dismissed, we find that the facts in this ground of appeal similar as of corresponding ground of appeal in AY 2013-14, thus, following the principal of consistency these grounds of appeal are dismissed with similar directions. 29. In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2017-18 is dismissed. ITA No.1677/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 16 30. Grounds 1, 4 & 5 in this appeal pertain to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) and making adjustment in book profit under section 115JB. We find that these grounds are identical to ground 2, 3 & 6 in appeal for AY 2013-14 in ITA No.1762/Mum/2025, which we have already dismissed. Therefore, following the principal of consistency these grounds of appeal are dismissed with similar directions. 31. Ground No. 2 & of this appeal is identical to ground 4& 5 in appeal for AY 2013-14 in ITA No.1675/Mum/2925, which we have already dismissed, we find that the facts in this ground of appeal similar as of corresponding ground of appeal in AY 2013-14, thus, following the principal of consistency these grounds of appeal are dismissed with similar directions. 32. In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed. ITA No. 1678/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) 33. The sole ground raised in this appeal pertains to deletion of addition of Rs.5.91 Crore on account of interest free loan to sister/ group companies. This ground is identical to ground 4 of ITA No.1762/Mum/2025 in appeal for AY 2013-14, which we have already decided against the revenue. Thus, following the principal of consistency these grounds of appeal are dismissed with similar directions. 34. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 35. We further find that the assessee in Appeal for AY 2013-14 has filed an application under Rule 27 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules-1963, raising grounds against the validity of assessment order passed under section 153Arwssection 143(3), however, at the time of hearing no submissions were Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1762, 1763, 1675, 1676, 1677,1678/Mum/025 M/s Welspurn Entrprises Limited 17 made on such application, hence, such application is treated as not pressed and dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 30/09/2025. Sd/- SMT. RENU JAUHRI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated: 30/09/2025 Pavanan Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "