323 ITR 158 (P&H); CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

383 ITR 589High Court2016#14175 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing 323 ITR 158 (P&H); CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

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

…d. 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 of funds and monitoring of such investments, it would be reasonable to esti…

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

…d. 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 of funds and monitoring of such investments, it would be reasonable to esti…

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

…d. 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 of funds and monitoring of such investments, it would be reasonable to esti…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2710/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…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 8D, we find that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 82,41,610/-, which are mostly from mutual funds. For deployment of funds and monitoring of such investments, it would be reasonable to estimate e…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2703/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…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 8D, we find that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 82,41,610/-, which are mostly from mutual funds. For deployment of funds and monitoring of such investments, it would be reasonable to estimate e…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2702/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…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 8D, we find that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 82,41,610/-, which are mostly from mutual funds. For deployment of funds and monitoring of such investments, it would be reasonable to estimate e…

SHAH MEHTA HOLDING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5824/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 14A

…nvestment Pvt. Ltd., 82 taxmann. com 515 (SB)(Del.); iii) Shares held as stock–in–trade cannot be considered for computing disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– 1) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, 383 ITR 589; and 2) Pr. CIT v/s State of Patiala, 391 ITR 218 (P&H) iv) Disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year. 6. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available…

323 ITR 158 (P&H); CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (383 ITR 589) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax