CIT v. HDFC Bank

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…exempt income is Rs. 11973.60 crs. As here appellant's own funds are more than appellant's investment, here there should not be any disallowance of interest u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii)/(iii), in view of Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank 330 ITR 221. With regard to disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) ie. 0.5% of average investment for disallowance under administrative expenses, here AO has directed to compute ) 0.5% of average investment but from this AO has to exclude stock in trade of the appellant in view of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. India Advantage Securities Lt…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…exempt income is Rs. 11973.60 crs. As here appellant's own funds are more than appellant's investment, here there should not be any disallowance of interest u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii)/(iii), in view of Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank 330 ITR 221. With regard to disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) ie. 0.5% of average investment for disallowance under administrative expenses, here AO has directed to compute ) 0.5% of average investment but from this AO has to exclude stock in trade of the appellant in view of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. India Advantage Securities Lt…

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. L AND T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA\nNo

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH,\nMUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 3568/MUM/2023\n(A.Y. 2017-18)\nITA No. 1666/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2020-21)\nDeputy Commissioner of v/s. L&T Infrastructure Company\nIncome Tax, Circle बनाम Finance Limited, Plot No. 177,\n14(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No. Brindavan, C.S.T. Road,\n432, 4th Floor, Aayakar Kalina, Santacruz (West),\nBhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 098,\n400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra\nAppellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR…

DCIT-14.1.1, , MUMBAI vs. L AND T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA\nNo

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH,\nMUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 3568/MUM/2023\n(A.Y. 2017-18)\nITA No. 1666/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2020-21)\nDeputy\nCommissioner of v/s.\nIncome Tax, Circle\n14(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No.\n432, 4th Floor, Aayakar\nBhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai\n400 020, Maharashtra\nAppellant/अपीलार्थी\n.. Respondent/प्रतिवादी\nL&T Infrastructure Company\nFinance Limited, Plot No. 177,\nBrindavan, C.S.T. Road,\nKalina, Santacruz (West),\nMumbai\n400 098,\nMaharashtra\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CC-3(2), CENTRAL RANGE-3, MUMBAI, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT vs. AARTI DURGS LIMITED, SION (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

…urisdictional High Court as under: P a g e | 7 ITA No. 3070, 3071 & 3068/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Aarti Drugs Limited, Mumbai i. South Indian Bank Ltd. 130 taxman.com 178 (SC) ii. Reliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) iii. HDFC Bank Ltd. 363 ITR 505 (Bom.) iv. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. 146 taxman.com 174 (Delhi) In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, Ld. AR argued that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld as it is in line with the settled legal position on the issue. On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the order of Ld. AO. 5.3 We have heard the ri…

DCIT CC 3(2), CENTRAL RANGE-3,MUMBAI, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT vs. AARTI DURGS LIMITED, SION (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…\nfavour of the assessee in various decisions including that of the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt and the Jurisdictional High Court as under:\ni.\nii.\niii.\niv.\nSouth Indian Bank Ltd. 130 taxman.com 178 (SC)\nReliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.)\nHDFC Bank Ltd. 363 ITR 505 (Bom.)\nPTC India Financial Services Ltd. 146 taxman.com 174 (Delhi)\nIn the light of the above judicial pronouncements, Ld. AR argued that the\ndecision of Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld as it is in line with the settled legal\nposition on the issue.\nOn the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the order of Ld. AO.\n5.3 We have heard the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CC-3(2), CENTRAL RANGE-3, MUMBAI, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT vs. AARTI DURGS LIMITED, SION (E)

…\nfavour of the assessee in various decisions including that of the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt and the Jurisdictional High Court as under:\ni.\nii.\niii.\niv.\nSouth Indian Bank Ltd. 130 taxman.com 178 (SC)\nReliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.)\nHDFC Bank Ltd. 363 ITR 505 (Bom.)\nPTC India Financial Services Ltd. 146 taxman.com 174 (Delhi)\nIn the light of the above judicial pronouncements, Ld. AR argued that the\ndecision of Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld as it is in line with the settled legal\nposition on the issue.\nOn the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the order of Ld. AO.\n5.3\nWe have heard the…

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…exempt income is Rs. 6,559.24 crs. As here appellant's own funds are more than appellant's investment, here there should not be any disallowance of interest u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) (iii), in view of Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank 330 ITR 221. With regard to disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) ie. 0.5% of average investment for disallowance under administrative expenses, here AO has directed to compute ) 0.5% of average investment but from this AO has to exclude stock in trade of the appellant in view of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. India Advantage Securities Lt…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…exempt income is Rs. 6,559.24 crs. As here appellant's own funds are more than appellant's investment, here there should not be any disallowance of interest u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) (iii), in view of Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank 330 ITR 221. With regard to disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) ie. 0.5% of average investment for disallowance under administrative expenses, here AO has directed to compute ) 0.5% of average investment but from this AO has to exclude stock in trade of the appellant in view of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. India Advantage Securities Lt…

GODAVARI CORPORATION P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09. Godavati Corporation P.Ltd., Vs. D.C.I.T.-1(1), Mumbai Industry House, 159, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Churchgate Reclamation, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 020. Pan Aaacg1850D. Appellant. Respondent.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09. Godavati Corporation P.Ltd., Vs. D.C.I.T.-1(1), Mumbai Industry House, 159, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Churchgate Reclamation, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 020. PAN AAACG1850D. Appellant. Respondent. Assessee by : Ms. Arati Vissanji, AR Revenue by : Shri V.Vinod Kumar, DR Date of Hearing : 06.03.2020 Date of pronouncement : 16.03.2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year…

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am S.P. Corporation Vs. Acit, Range-11(1) 65, Sterling Theatre Basement Aayakar Bhavan Murzaban Road, Fort Munbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaafs1086L Appellant) .. Respondent)

…o far as disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the Tribunal has recorded categorical finding in light of the decision of Honb’le Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance utility and power limited 313 ITR 340 and CIT vs HDFC Bank 363 ITR 505 that the assessee is having sufficient own funds in form of share capital and reserves in excess of investments in shares and securities which yield exempt income and hence, question of disallowance of interest expenditure does not arise. This year, the assessee has made out a case with necessary details that its own funds is in excess of inve…