CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

366 ITR 505High Court2014#34 most cited

What is CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

1,261

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v HDFC Bank Ltd · 366 ITR 505 · Section 14A disallowance · interest expenditure · exempt income · interest-free funds · own funds · presumption · sufficiency of funds · dividend income · Rule 8D

Also reported as

49 Taxmann.com 335226 Taxmann 132107 DTR 140

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 37(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8DSection 10(34)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

disallowance of interest expendituredisallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 14abook profitsrevenue expendituresection 115jsection 115jbsection 32capital expendituresection 37(1)section 36

Judgments citing CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Wheels India Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu 1 Chennai, Chennai

ITA 2771/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2701/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2702/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit M/S. Wheels India Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Large Taxpayer Unit-2 21, Pattulos Road, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw-0315-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2771/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2772/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Wheels India Pvt.Ltd. Acit बनाम 21, Pattulos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit-2 / Vs. Chennai-600 002. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw-0315-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…r making the investments. 4.3 The Appellant relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court In CIT Vs. Hotel Savera 239 ITR 195 and Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Gujarat State Fertilizers a Chemicals Ltd 85 CCH 273 Guj HC and HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) where it was held that no ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A was warranted where the assessee had sufficient funds available with it, which was more than the amount it invested for earning dividend income. The same are adjudicated as under. 3. Disallowance of interest on acquisition of fixed assets u/s.36(1)(iii) The assessee capit…

ACIT Ltu 2 Chennai, Chennai vs. Wheels India Limited, Chennai

ITA 2702/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2701/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2702/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit M/S. Wheels India Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Large Taxpayer Unit-2 21, Pattulos Road, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw-0315-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2771/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2772/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Wheels India Pvt.Ltd. Acit बनाम 21, Pattulos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit-2 / Vs. Chennai-600 002. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw-0315-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…r making the investments. 4.3 The Appellant relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court In CIT Vs. Hotel Savera 239 ITR 195 and Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Gujarat State Fertilizers a Chemicals Ltd 85 CCH 273 Guj HC and HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) where it was held that no ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A was warranted where the assessee had sufficient funds available with it, which was more than the amount it invested for earning dividend income. The same are adjudicated as under. 3. Disallowance of interest on acquisition of fixed assets u/s.36(1)(iii) The assessee capit…

ACIT Ltu 2 Chennai, Chennai vs. Wheels India Limited, Chennai

ITA 2701/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2701/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2702/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit M/S. Wheels India Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Large Taxpayer Unit-2 21, Pattulos Road, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw-0315-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2771/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2772/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Wheels India Pvt.Ltd. Acit बनाम 21, Pattulos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit-2 / Vs. Chennai-600 002. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw-0315-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…r making the investments. 4.3 The Appellant relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court In CIT Vs. Hotel Savera 239 ITR 195 and Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Gujarat State Fertilizers a Chemicals Ltd 85 CCH 273 Guj HC and HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) where it was held that no ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A was warranted where the assessee had sufficient funds available with it, which was more than the amount it invested for earning dividend income. The same are adjudicated as under. 3. Disallowance of interest on acquisition of fixed assets u/s.36(1)(iii) The assessee capit…

M/S Manali Petrochemicals Limited, Guindy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

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

ITA 369/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 369/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manali Petrochemicals Ltd., The Dcit, Spic House, 88, V. Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Mount Road, Chennai Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaacm 3404D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ed that the assessee has sufficient fund for I.T.A. No.369/Chny/2023 3 making investment and hence, the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules is without any basis in view of decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Ltd., 366 ITR 505. As regards disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the ld.counsel stated that the computation made by AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is not based on actual investment computed while making average value of 0.5% of investment. On query from the Bench, whether these details were furnished before AO during the course of assessment proceedings or before the C…

The ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3517/Mum./2006 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Grasim Industries Ltd. (Corporate Finance Division) A–2, Aditya Birla Centre ……………. Appellant S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACG4464B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(3), Mumbai ITA no.3854/Mum./2006 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–6(3), Mumbai v/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor ……………. Respondent Dr. A.…

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3517/Mum./2006 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Grasim Industries Ltd. (Corporate Finance Division) A–2, Aditya Birla Centre ……………. Appellant S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACG4464B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(3), Mumbai ITA no.3854/Mum./2006 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–6(3), Mumbai v/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor ……………. Respondent Dr. A.…

Truworth Infotech Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mann 167 held that where both interest-free and interest bearing funds were available with assessee, it was to be presumed that investment in shares/securities were made out of interest-free fund. The Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 and in the same case (2016) 383 ITR 256 held that where an assessee has own funds and other non-interest bearing funds more than investment in tax free securities then no disallowance u/s 14A could be made. In CIT Vs. Gujrat Power Corporation Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 583 (GUJ.) the Hon'ble High Court held that assessee using its own funds for investme…

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

…efore us now claimed that no interest expenses to be allocated as the investment is made out ofassessee's own funds. For this, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 314 (Bom.). It was contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the entire interest expenses are to be allowed as expenses and no interest expenses to be allocated as the investment is made out ofassessee's own funds. She referred to the Tribunal's decision i…

Acc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…out of assessee's own interest free funds, in terms of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 135/313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 49 taxmann.com 335/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/366 ITR 505 (Bom.), no disallowance of interest is warranted. With regard to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) he contended that assessee itself has offered the amount attributable for earning the exempt income, therefore, further disallowance made by Revenue authorities was not justified. 28. Learned AR also invited our attention to the order of t…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai-400005 vs. M/S. Acc Limited, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 1171/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…out of assessee's own interest free funds, in terms of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 135/313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 49 taxmann.com 335/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/366 ITR 505 (Bom.), no disallowance of interest is warranted. With regard to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) he contended that assessee itself has offered the amount attributable for earning the exempt income, therefore, further disallowance made by Revenue authorities was not justified. 28. Learned AR also invited our attention to the order of t…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3501/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

…ssee by the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in cas decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in cas decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus HDFC bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 wherein loss on versus HDFC bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 wherein loss on versus HDFC bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 wherein loss on revaluation of securities classified as held till maturity is a revaluation of securities classified as held till maturity is a revaluation of securities classified as held till maturity is a revenue expenditure. revenue expenditure.…

DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3239/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

…ssee by the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in cas decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in cas decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus HDFC bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 wherein loss on versus HDFC bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 wherein loss on versus HDFC bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 wherein loss on revaluation of securities classified as held till maturity is a revaluation of securities classified as held till maturity is a revaluation of securities classified as held till maturity is a revenue expenditure. revenue expenditure.…

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 5765/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

…efore us now claimed that no interest expenses to be allocated as the investment is made out ofassessee's own funds. For this, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 314 (Bom.). It was contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the entire interest expenses are to be allowed as expenses and no interest expenses to be allocated as the investment is made out ofassessee's own funds. She referred to the Tribunal's decision i…

DCIT Cir. 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4337/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3439/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Grasim Industries Ltd. (Corporate Finance Division) A–2, Aditya Birla Centre ……………. Appellant S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACG4464B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(3), Mumbai ITA no.4337/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–6(3), Mumbai v/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor ……………. Respondent Dr. A.B.…

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3439/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3439/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Grasim Industries Ltd. (Corporate Finance Division) A–2, Aditya Birla Centre ……………. Appellant S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACG4464B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(3), Mumbai ITA no.4337/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–6(3), Mumbai v/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor ……………. Respondent Dr. A.B.…

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…s.6559.24 crores. Therefore, it is sufficiently evident that during the year under consideration, the assessee’s own funds are more than investments for earning exempt income. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) held that where assessee’s own funds and other non–interest bearing funds were more than the investment in tax-free securities, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs CIT, [2021] 438 ITR 001 (SC) held that disallowance under section 14A of the Ac…

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…s.6559.24 crores. Therefore, it is sufficiently evident that during the year under consideration, the assessee’s own funds are more than investments for earning exempt income. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) held that where assessee’s own funds and other non–interest bearing funds were more than the investment in tax-free securities, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs CIT, [2021] 438 ITR 001 (SC) held that disallowance under section 14A of the Ac…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2937/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 18

…scussion the hon'ble ITAT is requested to uphold the addition made by the AO.” 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this issue is decided in favour of assessee by decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505). This issue was also decided in favour of the assessee by Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in case of State Bank of India in ITA.No. 3644 and 4563/Mum/2016. Copy of the order is placed on record. Further, he placed reliance on decision of ITAT in case of State Bank of India Page No. | 16 ITA NO. 2937 & 2919/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. IDBI Bank Ltd (Succe…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2116/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kumar
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 801ASection 80I

…ital of Rs.563.18 crores, and reserves & surplus of Rs.17,934.31 crores). While the amount of investment held by the assessee earning exempt income is only Rs.3,192.17 crores. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) held that where assessee‟s own funds and other non–interest bearing funds were more than the investment in tax-free securities, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs CIT, [2021] 438 ITR 001 (SC) held that disallowance under section 14A of the Ac…

M/S. Icici Bank Ltd ( Erstwhile Icici Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 7589/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 88

…fore us now claimed that no interest expenses to be allocated as the investment is made out of assessee’s own funds. For this, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 314 (Bom.). It was contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the entire interest expenses are to be allowed as expenses and no interest expenses to be allocated as the investment is made out of assessee’s own funds. She referred to the Tribunal’s decision…