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.

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

ITA 984/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

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…

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4295/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…March 2010 that its own funds was Rs.2,894,197,392/-. The investment as at 31st March 2010 was Rs.868,635,071/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 91 “RohaDyechem Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1991/Mum/2016 "15. It is clear that for the first time in th…

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4294/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…March 2010 that its own funds was Rs.2,894,197,392/-. The investment as at 31st March 2010 was Rs.868,635,071/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 91 “RohaDyechem Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1991/Mum/2016 "15. It is clear that for the first time in th…

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4293/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…March 2010 that its own funds was Rs.2,894,197,392/-. The investment as at 31st March 2010 was Rs.868,635,071/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 91 “RohaDyechem Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1991/Mum/2016 "15. It is clear that for the first time in th…

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2863/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…March 2010 that its own funds was Rs.2,894,197,392/-. The investment as at 31st March 2010 was Rs.868,635,071/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 91 “RohaDyechem Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1991/Mum/2016 "15. It is clear that for the first time in th…

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2862/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…March 2010 that its own funds was Rs.2,894,197,392/-. The investment as at 31st March 2010 was Rs.868,635,071/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 91 “RohaDyechem Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1991/Mum/2016 "15. It is clear that for the first time in th…

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2860/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…March 2010 that its own funds was Rs.2,894,197,392/-. The investment as at 31st March 2010 was Rs.868,635,071/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 91 “RohaDyechem Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1991/Mum/2016 "15. It is clear that for the first time in th…

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2859/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…March 2010 that its own funds was Rs.2,894,197,392/-. The investment as at 31st March 2010 was Rs.868,635,071/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 91 “RohaDyechem Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1991/Mum/2016 "15. It is clear that for the first time in th…

ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 10/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…March 2010 that its own funds was Rs.2,894,197,392/-. The investment as at 31st March 2010 was Rs.868,635,071/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 91 “RohaDyechem Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1991/Mum/2016 "15. It is clear that for the first time in th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 740/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

…ITA No.580 & 740/Bang/2022 M/s. Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd. No.10/1, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner of Lakshminarayana Complex, Income-tax Palace Road Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Vasanth Nagar Bangalore Bangalore 560 052 PAN NO : AADCC0651M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Century Real Estate Income-tax Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central…

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 728/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…enses in the present case of Rs.49,42,473 made under Rule 8D(2) (ii) of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 120141 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." Accordingly, in case when the assessee's own fund is more than the investment made in the tax free securities then t…

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…enses in the present case of Rs.49,42,473 made under Rule 8D(2) (ii) of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 120141 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." Accordingly, in case when the assessee's own fund is more than the investment made in the tax free securities then t…

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 695/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…enses in the present case of Rs.49,42,473 made under Rule 8D(2) (ii) of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 120141 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." Accordingly, in case when the assessee's own fund is more than the investment made in the tax free securities then t…

Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 580/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

…ITA No.580 & 740/Bang/2022 M/s. Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd. No.10/1, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner of Lakshminarayana Complex, Income-tax Palace Road Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Vasanth Nagar Bangalore Bangalore 560 052 PAN NO : AADCC0651M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Century Real Estate Income-tax Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central…

ACIT- Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Cg Power & Industrial Solution Ltd. (Formerly Known As Crompton Greaves Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2955/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 14Section 14ASection 35Section 80I

…res. Since the amount of own funds has exceeded the value of investments, the presumption is that the assessee has made investments out of its own funds, as per the decision rendered by Honourable jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC bank Ltd (366 ITR 505). Accordingly there is no requirement of making any disallowance out of interest expenditure under rule 8D (2) (ii) of IT rules. Since this decision has been rendered byLd CIT(A) following the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court, we uphold the same. 8. With regard to disallowance out of expenditure u/r 8D(2)(iii) of IT Rules, it is the…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 1 of 99 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA No.2384 and 3475/Mum/2019 and 1241/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Ambuja Cement Limited .…………………………Appellant (formerly known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) Elegant Business Park, MIDC Cross Road B, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 059 [PAN: AAACG0569P] Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai ……………...………

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd .(Successor to M/S Sahajanad Hi-Tech Construction Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, the appeal of the learned

ITA 1893/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To M/S Sahajanad Acit Cc-7(3) Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Room No. 655, Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 412,4Th Floor, 17-G, Vs. M.K.Road, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai- 400 020 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Cirlce, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaecp1936F Acit Cc-7(3) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Room No. 655, (Successor To Bellissimo Aayakar Bhavan, Developers Thane Private Limited) M.K.Road, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D ‘Ita No. 1864/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Dcit, (Successor To Bellissimo Central Circle 7(3) Developers Thane Private Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Limited) 412, Floor-4, 17G Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, M. K. Road, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Mumbai-400 021 Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D

For Appellant: Shri. Gunajjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri. Nishant Somaiya SRAR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…he difference between the average borrowing rate and interest charged to Jawala Real Estate for a period of 3 months is only ₹9,00,075/-. The learned CIT (A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 304 and 366 ITR 505 have confirmed the disallowance of the above amount. 029. The learned Departmental Representative could not show us that the loan given to Jawala Real Estate of ₹450 crores was not financed partly out of 350 crores of zero interest preference shares and further interest rate charged to Jawala Real Estate and interest rate for payment is only less…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, the appeal of the learned

ITA 1885/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To M/S Sahajanad Acit Cc-7(3) Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Room No. 655, Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 412,4Th Floor, 17-G, Vs. M.K.Road, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai- 400 020 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Cirlce, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaecp1936F Acit Cc-7(3) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Room No. 655, (Successor To Bellissimo Aayakar Bhavan, Developers Thane Private Limited) M.K.Road, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D ‘Ita No. 1864/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Dcit, (Successor To Bellissimo Central Circle 7(3) Developers Thane Private Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Limited) 412, Floor-4, 17G Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, M. K. Road, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Mumbai-400 021 Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D

For Appellant: Shri. Gunajjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri. Nishant Somaiya SRAR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…he difference between the average borrowing rate and interest charged to Jawala Real Estate for a period of 3 months is only ₹9,00,075/-. The learned CIT (A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 304 and 366 ITR 505 have confirmed the disallowance of the above amount. 029. The learned Departmental Representative could not show us that the loan given to Jawala Real Estate of ₹450 crores was not financed partly out of 350 crores of zero interest preference shares and further interest rate charged to Jawala Real Estate and interest rate for payment is only less…

Macrotech Developers Ltd(Successor to Bellissimo Developers Thane Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3) (Formerly Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(2)), Mumbai

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, the appeal of the learned

ITA 1864/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To M/S Sahajanad Acit Cc-7(3) Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Room No. 655, Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 412,4Th Floor, 17-G, Vs. M.K.Road, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai- 400 020 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Cirlce, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaecp1936F Acit Cc-7(3) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Room No. 655, (Successor To Bellissimo Aayakar Bhavan, Developers Thane Private Limited) M.K.Road, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D ‘Ita No. 1864/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Dcit, (Successor To Bellissimo Central Circle 7(3) Developers Thane Private Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Limited) 412, Floor-4, 17G Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, M. K. Road, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Mumbai-400 021 Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D

For Appellant: Shri. Gunajjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri. Nishant Somaiya SRAR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…he difference between the average borrowing rate and interest charged to Jawala Real Estate for a period of 3 months is only ₹9,00,075/-. The learned CIT (A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 304 and 366 ITR 505 have confirmed the disallowance of the above amount. 029. The learned Departmental Representative could not show us that the loan given to Jawala Real Estate of ₹450 crores was not financed partly out of 350 crores of zero interest preference shares and further interest rate charged to Jawala Real Estate and interest rate for payment is only less…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2726/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

…-------- Rs 10.35 crores 4.2. The ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the order passed by his predecessor for the A.Y. 2013-14 dated 06/11/2017 and by placing reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) deleted the disallowance of interest made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. The ld. CIT(A) however upheld the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. With regard to yet another submission made by the assessee that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act per se could…