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.

Acc Limited (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT, RG. 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3203/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)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…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 6082/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4669/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2007-08) M/s. ACC Limited v. Addl. CIT – LTU (Formerly known as The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. CIT – LTU v. M/s. ACC Limited 28th Floor, Centre – 1 (Formerly known as The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-40…

Acc Limited (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 417/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…crores as against investments made in shares for ₹.476.67 crore. Reliance was mainly placed on following decisions. (i) South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC)] (ii) HDFC Bank v. DCIT [(2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bombay HC)] (iii) CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) (iv) Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) 103. The Ld.AR of the assessee has alternatively contended that in the case of Ambuja Cement Limited, Mumbai ITAT has considered disallowance u/s 14A @ 1% of exempt income as reasonable disallowance in ITA No 5883 & 5927 of 2012 for A.Y.2005-06. 104. The Ld. DR has relied upon…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associates Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4669/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2007-08) M/s. ACC Limited v. Addl. CIT – LTU (Formerly known as The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. CIT – LTU v. M/s. ACC Limited 28th Floor, Centre – 1 (Formerly known as The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-40…

Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4669/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2007-08) M/s. ACC Limited v. Addl. CIT – LTU (Formerly known as The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. CIT – LTU v. M/s. ACC Limited 28th Floor, Centre – 1 (Formerly known as The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-40…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5692/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…crores as against investments made in shares for ₹.476.67 crore. Reliance was mainly placed on following decisions. (i) South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC)] (ii) HDFC Bank v. DCIT [(2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bombay HC)] (iii) CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) (iv) Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) 103. The Ld.AR of the assessee has alternatively contended that in the case of Ambuja Cement Limited, Mumbai ITAT has considered disallowance u/s 14A @ 1% of exempt income as reasonable disallowance in ITA No 5883 & 5927 of 2012 for A.Y.2005-06. 104. The Ld. DR has relied upon…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5655/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…crores as against investments made in shares for ₹.476.67 crore. Reliance was mainly placed on following decisions. (i) South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC)] (ii) HDFC Bank v. DCIT [(2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bombay HC)] (iii) CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) (iv) Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) 103. The Ld.AR of the assessee has alternatively contended that in the case of Ambuja Cement Limited, Mumbai ITAT has considered disallowance u/s 14A @ 1% of exempt income as reasonable disallowance in ITA No 5883 & 5927 of 2012 for A.Y.2005-06. 104. The Ld. DR has relied upon…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3786/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…es as against investments made in shares for Rs 326.69 crore. Reliance was mainly placed on following decisions. (i). South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC)] (ii). HDFC Bank v. DCIT [(2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bombay HC)] (iii). CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) (iv). Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) 10. The Ld. DR has relied upon finding given in assessment order and heavily relied on the decision in the case of Williamson Financial Services Limited, (ITA No 154 to 156/Gau/2019), ITAT Gauhati Bench in which it was held that rule 8D is applicable retrospectively. Hence she…

Acc Ltd (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3490/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…es as against investments made in shares for Rs 326.69 crore. Reliance was mainly placed on following decisions. (i). South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC)] (ii). HDFC Bank v. DCIT [(2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bombay HC)] (iii). CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) (iv). Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) 10. The Ld. DR has relied upon finding given in assessment order and heavily relied on the decision in the case of Williamson Financial Services Limited, (ITA No 154 to 156/Gau/2019), ITAT Gauhati Bench in which it was held that rule 8D is applicable retrospectively. Hence she…

Prabhudas Lilaldhar P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4202/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(ii)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…around Rs. 40 crores, which is in far excess than the value of investments. Accordingly, he submitted that no disallowance out of interest expenditure is called for as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014)(366 ITR 505). We agree with the above said submissions made by the Ld A.R. Admittedly, the own funds available with the assessee is far exceeds the value of investment and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 3 Prabhudas Liladhar P. Ltd. has held in the above said case that in that kind of situation, it should be presumed that the investment have been made out of…

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1920/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 115JSection 131Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 1920/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10) C.O. No. 129/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2009-10) Vs. DCIT, Circle-3(4) M/s. Lupin Limited 7th Floor, Kalpataru Inspire 29th Floor Off. Western Express Center 1, World Highway, Santacruz East Trade Centre Mumbai-400 055. Cuffee Parade Mumbai-400 005. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 395/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2009-10) Vs. M/s. Lupin Limited ACIT, Circle-3(4) 29th Floor 7th Floor, Kalpataru Inspire Center 1, World Off. Western Express Trade Centre Highway, Santacruz…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 659/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." Thereafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- “The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 335 . When the issue is already covered by a decision of the High Court of Bombay with which we concur, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration as canvassed.” 17. On perusal of records (page 69 of paper book) it is noticed that the own funds as per the Balance sheet as on 3…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 658/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." Thereafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- “The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 335 . When the issue is already covered by a decision of the High Court of Bombay with which we concur, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration as canvassed.” 17. On perusal of records (page 69 of paper book) it is noticed that the own funds as per the Balance sheet as on 3…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." Thereafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- “The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 335 . When the issue is already covered by a decision of the High Court of Bombay with which we concur, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration as canvassed.” 17. On perusal of records (page 69 of paper book) it is noticed that the own funds as per the Balance sheet as on 3…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 656/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." Thereafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- “The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 335 . When the issue is already covered by a decision of the High Court of Bombay with which we concur, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration as canvassed.” 17. On perusal of records (page 69 of paper book) it is noticed that the own funds as per the Balance sheet as on 3…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 655/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." Thereafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- “The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 335 . When the issue is already covered by a decision of the High Court of Bombay with which we concur, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration as canvassed.” 17. On perusal of records (page 69 of paper book) it is noticed that the own funds as per the Balance sheet as on 3…

Satya Narayan Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

ITA 49/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…an Dhoot having capital balance of Rs.229.34 crores, as against the investments of around Rs.130 crores. Hence no part of interest expenses is liable to be disallowed in terms of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505)(Bom). 12. The foregoing discussions would show that the AO has made enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings with regard to the disallowance to be made u/s 14A of the Act. Further, since the assessee is having enough own funds, no disallowance out of interest expenses is also called for. On these reasoning, the order passed by Ld P…

D.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Electrosteel Casting Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Income-Tax, Central G.K. Tower Vs. Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, Camac Street Kolkata -700017 (Pan: Aaace4975B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(1)

…as against its exempt income investments of Rs.15,894.02 lakhs and exempt income yielding investment of Rs.13,650.89 lakhs; respectively. Various judicial precedents, i.e. CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340 (Bom)], CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505 (Bom)] and CIT vs. Torrent Power Ltd. [363 ITR 474 (Guj.)] hold that impugned proportionate interest expenses disallowance does not apply in the case of non-interest bearing funds turning out to be more than exempt investments. We decline Revenue's instant second argument as well. 7.The Revenue's third argument qua the instant issue is that the C…

Dhnalaxmi Bank Limited, Trichur vs. The Pr CIT, Thrissur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 56/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(33)Section 14Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…ules should be deleted. We order accordingly." Thereafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- “The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. Page 8 of 10 [2014] 366 ITR 505/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 335 . When the issue is already covered by a decision of the High Court of Bombay with which we concur, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration as canvassed.” 11. Therefore, by placing reliance on the above judgment we hold that disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) is n…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, (OSD), Circle -1, Solapur vs. M/S. Lokmangal Agro Industries Ltd, Solapur

ITA 986/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(1)

…fresh adjudication on the specific issue as to whether the assessee’s non interest bearing surplus funds exceed the corresponding exempt income yielding investments or not in light of hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s judgment in HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) Ordered accordingly. 10. Learned counsel next submitted very fairly that so far as the latter limb of administrative expenditure in computing the impugned CO Nos.05 & 06/PUN/2022 M/s. Lokmangal Agro Industries Ltd., disallowance at the rate of 0.5% of the average value of investments is concerned, the same is indeed mandatory in nature…