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.

Addl. CIT., Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2808/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, CA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A.D. Jain, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Addl. Commissioner of Vs M/s Tourism Finance Corporation Income Tax, of India Ltd. 13th Floor, IFCI Tower, Sp. Range-9, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, 61 Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi-110019 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACT0706D Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, CA Assessee by : ** Date of Hearing: 10.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.06.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: ** The Revenue filed letter of adjournment signed by th…

M/S. Hemavathy Power & Light Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1820/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…reafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- ITA Nos. 2717 to 2719/Bang/2018 & 1820/Bang/2019 Page 11 of 13 “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.” 16. The contention of the ld. DR that based on earlier years financials, the share capital & reserves are used for…

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2719/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…reafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- ITA Nos. 2717 to 2719/Bang/2018 & 1820/Bang/2019 Page 11 of 13 “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.” 16. The contention of the ld. DR that based on earlier years financials, the share capital & reserves are used for…

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2718/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…reafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- ITA Nos. 2717 to 2719/Bang/2018 & 1820/Bang/2019 Page 11 of 13 “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.” 16. The contention of the ld. DR that based on earlier years financials, the share capital & reserves are used for…

M/S Hemavathy Power & Light Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2717/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…reafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- ITA Nos. 2717 to 2719/Bang/2018 & 1820/Bang/2019 Page 11 of 13 “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.” 16. The contention of the ld. DR that based on earlier years financials, the share capital & reserves are used for…

Guardian Nutrition & Health Supplements Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4628/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Senior DR

…t of attribution lies with the assessee and AO cannot insist upon one to one nexus between the funds. This view is duly corroborated by Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505. 4 ITA No.4628/Del./2019 This aspect needs to be considered by the AO in making the disallowance which has not been done. 7. Furthermore, authorities below have shown that there is abnormal increase in sale to related parties, hence the debt is not normal. In our considered opinion, this plank is not acceptable as Revenue authorities are accepti…

T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2761/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mpt income. The ld.Counsel stated that once this is the position, presumption will go in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in [2014] ITA Nos.2758-2761/Chny/2019 & :- 5 -: 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that in other years also the AO has not brought out any nexus in regard to investment made by the assessee for earning of exempt income. The investment is made out of interest free funds. Once this is the fact, the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r.8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, cannot be made. 2.4 O…

T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2760/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mpt income. The ld.Counsel stated that once this is the position, presumption will go in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in [2014] ITA Nos.2758-2761/Chny/2019 & :- 5 -: 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that in other years also the AO has not brought out any nexus in regard to investment made by the assessee for earning of exempt income. The investment is made out of interest free funds. Once this is the fact, the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r.8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, cannot be made. 2.4 O…

T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2759/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mpt income. The ld.Counsel stated that once this is the position, presumption will go in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in [2014] ITA Nos.2758-2761/Chny/2019 & :- 5 -: 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that in other years also the AO has not brought out any nexus in regard to investment made by the assessee for earning of exempt income. The investment is made out of interest free funds. Once this is the fact, the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r.8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, cannot be made. 2.4 O…

T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2758/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mpt income. The ld.Counsel stated that once this is the position, presumption will go in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in [2014] ITA Nos.2758-2761/Chny/2019 & :- 5 -: 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that in other years also the AO has not brought out any nexus in regard to investment made by the assessee for earning of exempt income. The investment is made out of interest free funds. Once this is the fact, the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r.8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, cannot be made. 2.4 O…

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2754/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mpt income. The ld.Counsel stated that once this is the position, presumption will go in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in [2014] ITA Nos.2758-2761/Chny/2019 & :- 5 -: 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that in other years also the AO has not brought out any nexus in regard to investment made by the assessee for earning of exempt income. The investment is made out of interest free funds. Once this is the fact, the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r.8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, cannot be made. 2.4 O…

M/S. First Light Properties P. Ltd.(Earstwhile Known As M/S. Sumer Builders P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC, 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed and stand of AO is confirmed

ITA 1768/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S First Light Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As M/S Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd.) 205, Commerce House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, For, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacs7947P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Sh. Sandip Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Sh. Sandip Raj, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…assessee is out of interest free funds available with the assessee and therefore the disallowance under section 14A of the Act is not warranted. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements; 1) CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bombay) 2) CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Limited – (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) 3) HDFC Bank Limited vs DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bombay) 13. It is a settled position of law that where there is no exempt income earned, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D can be made. In this background, ground no.3 of the assessee…

Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Cir -6(2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 929/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…come Tax Rules, 1962. It was explanation of the thus, interest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has suf…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 829/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…come Tax Rules, 1962. It was explanation of the thus, interest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has suf…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 301/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…come Tax Rules, 1962. It was explanation of the thus, interest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has suf…

M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2150/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…come Tax Rules, 1962. It was explanation of the thus, interest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has suf…

M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2149/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…come Tax Rules, 1962. It was explanation of the thus, interest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has suf…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2078/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…come Tax Rules, 1962. It was explanation of the thus, interest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has suf…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2077/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…come Tax Rules, 1962. It was explanation of the thus, interest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has suf…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 3219/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…come Tax Rules, 1962. It was explanation of the thus, interest disallowances cannot be made. We find that law is very settled by the decisions of various High Courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where it has been held that once the assessee proves that investment is made out of mixed funds, including own funds and borrowed funds, then presumption goes in favour of the assessee that investments is made out of own funds. In this case, claim of the assessee is that it has suf…