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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3568/MUM/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) ITA No. 1666/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner of v/s. L&T Infrastructure Company Income Tax, Circle बनाम Finance Limited, Plot No. 177, 14(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No. Brindavan, C.S.T. Road, 432, 4th Floor, Aayakar Kalina, Santacruz (West), Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 098, 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCL2283L प्रत्याक्षेपसं../C.O…

DCIT-14.1.1, Mumbai vs. L and T Infrastructure Finance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3568/MUM/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) ITA No. 1666/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner of v/s. Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No. 432, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020, Maharashtra Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी L&T Infrastructure Company Finance Limited, Plot No. 177, Brindavan, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 098, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCL2283L प्रत्याक्षेपसं../C.O…

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

…overed in favour of the assessee in various decisions including that of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court as under: i. ii. iii. iv. South Indian Bank Ltd. 130 taxman.com 178 (SC) Reliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) HDFC Bank Ltd. 363 ITR 505 (Bom.) 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 rival…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CC-3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

…overed in favour of the assessee in various decisions including that of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court as under: i. ii. iii. iv. South Indian Bank Ltd. 130 taxman.com 178 (SC) Reliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) HDFC Bank Ltd. 363 ITR 505 (Bom.) 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 rival…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, (a) all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed, (b) Cross Objection 1 (1

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…ition 462 of 2017, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court stayed the assessment proceedings since the Transfer Pricing Officer was directed not to pass final order. Thereafter, vide final order dated 20/12/2018 passed in the aforesaid writ petition [reported in (2019) 410 ITR 247], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed the reference to the TPO. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, completed the assessment and passed Assessment Order on 15/02/2019. 4. The Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the above Assessment Order contending, inter alia, that the Assessment Order was bad in law having been passed after 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…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

…ed March 14, 2019 under section 115Q r.w.s. 115O of the Act affirmed by order of CIT (A) is clearly erroneous and bad in law. The Appellant submits that in the context of section 40A(2)(b), the Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank v ACIT 410 ITR 247 (Pg. 512-538 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II)has held that an indirect shareholding cannot be considered for determining the relationship between the companies, when the section does not refer to indirect shareholding. Similarly, the Appellant submits that an indirect transfer cannot be fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(a) of the Act. Also refe…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

…ed March 14, 2019 under section 115Q r.w.s. 115O of the Act affirmed by order of CIT (A) is clearly erroneous and bad in law. The Appellant submits that in the context of section 40A(2)(b), the Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank v ACIT 410 ITR 247 (Pg. 512-538 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II)has held that an indirect shareholding cannot be considered for determining the relationship between the companies, when the section does not refer to indirect shareholding. Similarly, the Appellant submits that an indirect transfer cannot be fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(a) of the Act. Also refe…

Mr Firoz A Nadiadwala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

…enquiry brought on record by the assessing officer regarding the unsecured loan. That no one to one nexus is required between interest free funds and sum advanced in terms of the decision of honourable Bombay High Court decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (410 ITR 247) (Bom) and Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158). 10. In these circumstances, in the substantial interest of justice we deem it appropriate to remit the issue the file of learned CIT(appeals).Learned CIT(appeals) is directed to decide the issue on merits after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 11. In the result ap…

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…

Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

…HC) 4. CIT vs. Pravin Bhimshi Chheda (2015) 228 Taxman 340 (Bom)(HC)(MAG) 7. The ld counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd Vs ACIT M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2019)410 ITR 247 (Bom) to prove his point that it is incorrect to regard a parent company/shareholder as beneficial owner of the assets held by the subsidiary company since the wholly owned subsidiary is a separate legal entity though the decision was rendered in the context of provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. submitted that even if the appli…