CIT(A) v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

366 ITR 105High Court#17759 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 143(3)Section 1976Section 22 of RRB ActSection 32 of RRB Act

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(viia)rule of consistencysection 80p(4)section 22section 32section 80p(2)(a)(i)section 80psection 14afirst appealsection 80section 143(2)section 143

Judgments citing CIT(A) v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

DCIT, Circle, Rohtak vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1822/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhriआअसं.1820 To 1822/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17 To 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

…TA Nos. 1820 to 1822/DEL/2023 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) amortization on securities ‘held to maturity’ and made addition of Rs.2,35,11,091-/. In first appeal, the CIT(A) deleting the addition following decisions rendered in the case of CIT(A) vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 105 (Bom) and in the case of ACIT vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2011) TIOL 35 (ITAT Mumbai). The issue is now well settled that amount paid towards amortization of premium on securities ‘held to maturity’ is an allowable deduction. We see no infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue, hence, the same are upheld and ground no. 4 to 6 are…

DCIT, Circle, Rohtak vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1821/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhriआअसं.1820 To 1822/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17 To 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

…TA Nos. 1820 to 1822/DEL/2023 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) amortization on securities ‘held to maturity’ and made addition of Rs.2,35,11,091-/. In first appeal, the CIT(A) deleting the addition following decisions rendered in the case of CIT(A) vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 105 (Bom) and in the case of ACIT vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2011) TIOL 35 (ITAT Mumbai). The issue is now well settled that amount paid towards amortization of premium on securities ‘held to maturity’ is an allowable deduction. We see no infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue, hence, the same are upheld and ground no. 4 to 6 are…

DCIT Circle, Rohtak vs. Sarva Haryana Garmin Bank, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1820/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhriआअसं.1820 To 1822/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17 To 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

…TA Nos. 1820 to 1822/DEL/2023 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) amortization on securities ‘held to maturity’ and made addition of Rs.2,35,11,091-/. In first appeal, the CIT(A) deleting the addition following decisions rendered in the case of CIT(A) vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 105 (Bom) and in the case of ACIT vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2011) TIOL 35 (ITAT Mumbai). The issue is now well settled that amount paid towards amortization of premium on securities ‘held to maturity’ is an allowable deduction. We see no infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue, hence, the same are upheld and ground no. 4 to 6 are…

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…ents: PCIT v Sintex Industries Ltd (2018) (93 taxmann.com 24) (SC) CIT v Reliance Industries Ltd (2019) (410 ITR 466)(SC) CIT v Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (2009) (313 ITR 340) (Bom) HDFC Bank Ltd v DCIT (2016) (383 ITR 529)(Bom) CIT v HDFC Bank Ltd (2014)(366 ITR 105)(Bom) (f) Without prejudice to previous submission -Scientific apportionment of administrative expenses As mentioned, the Assessee has earned a dividend income of INR 32.99 crs. And the disallowance computed by the AO by invoking Rule 8D is INR 3.57 crs. Without prejudice, the Assessee has suo-moto identified composite expenditure under each hea…

Kumar Agro Products Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 14(4), Pune

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

ITA 556/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora / Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…g of fact both by the C.I.T. (Appeals) and I.T.A.T. The above ratio was reiterated by several High Courts in several cases like PCIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co., Ltd reported in 423 ITR 220 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 105 (Bom) etc. 13. The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities reported in 313 ITR 340 was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Industries Limited reported in 410 ITR 466 (SC) and similar is the decision of Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. CIT reported in 298 ITR 298 (SC). The…

CIT(A) v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 105) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax