CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Dy CIT, CC--1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Brothers Exports P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…he directors, which far exceeded the investment made by the assessee. Hence, no disallowance of interest should be made in the light of the decision of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340/178 Taxman 135 (Bom.) and CIT v. HDFC Bank [2014] 366 ITR 505/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 335 (Bom.). Regarding disallowance of indirect expenditure of Rs. 11,85,278/- worked in accordance with Rule 8D(2)(iii), he submitted that, firstly, the most of the investments were made by way of 'strategic investment' in subsidiaries and associated companies and, therefore, it cannot be held that they were m…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

…re more than the amount of investments in the tax free securities and no disallowance can be made in respect of interest in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay high court in the case of Reliance Utilities Ltd Vs CIT(313 ITR 340 Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505 Bom). 17. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials on records we find that the assesse own funds are far more that the investments in tax free securities. We note that assesse own funds were Rs.512.65 Cr whereas the investments in tax free securities were 17.27 Cr. The ld CIT(A) has passed the order after following the deci…

Asst. CIT Circle- 16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Utv Software Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle -16(1) Vs. M/S. Utv Software Room No. 439, 4Th Communications Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Bldg-14, Mk Road, Mumbai – Solitaire Corporate 400020. Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace4122G Appellant .. Respondent

…hedule 16 of the annual report there is no dividend income from the investments earned but the assessee has earned profit on sale of investments. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and disposed off the ground of appeal.Whereas, in respect of computation of Book profit u/sec 115JB of the Act, the CIT(A) relied on the decision of Special Bench M/s Vireet Investment Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT and directed the A.O. not to make adjustment on disallowance U/sec14A of the Act. Whereas, the CIT(A) in other grounds of appeal has granted…

Conwood Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle-12(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Conwood Realty Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-12(1)(2) Yashodham, D.B. House, Gen. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 (East), Mumbai – 400063 Pan No. Aadcc2501Q (Assessee) (Revenue) C.O. No. 55/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6447/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Circle-12(1)(2) M/S Conwood Realty Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 128D, 1St Floor, Aayakar Vs. Yashodham, D.B. House, Gen. Bhavan, Churchgate, A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Mumbai 400020 (East), Mumbai – 400063 Pan No. Aadcc2501Q (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10/2021

…47/Mum/2019 & C.O. 55/M/2021 11 M/s Conwood Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1)(2) disallowed. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and that of CIT Vs. Reliance Utility & Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 304 (Bom). 12. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. After deliberating at length on the contentions advanced by the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, we find substantial force in…

Dy CIT, CC- 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developer Ltd.(Since Lodha Estae P. Ltd. Merged With Macrotech Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Deputy Commissioner Of Income- M/S Macrotech Developer Ltd. Tax Cc-7(3), Room No. 655, Vs. (Since Lodha Estate Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Macrotech Developer Ltd.), Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, 412, 17G, Vardhman Chamber, Mumbai – 400 020 Cawasji Patel Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Pan No. Aaacl1723E (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R Revenue By : Shri. Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y 2015-16. The Revenue Has Assailed The Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Effective Grounds Before Us : “1. Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,26,52,120/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The I.T Act. 2. Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,02,86,452/- Towards Sales Promotion Expense & Rs. 6,68,13,114/- On Account Of Advertisement Expenses Made By The Assessing Officer By Capitalizing The Same To The Work-In-Progress.” 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Company That Was Merged With M/S Lodha Developers Limited (Now Known As Macrotech Developers Limited) Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate. Return Of Income For A.Y 2015-16 Was E-Filed By The Assessee On 31.08.2015, Declaring A Loss

…of interest expenditure was liable to be disallowed. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove had relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities, 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT-2, Mumbai Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Accordingly, the CIT(A) backed by his aforesaid deliberations directed the A.O to vacate the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 5,26,52,120/- made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Insofar the disallowance by the A.O of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of Sales promotion expenses of Rs. 2,02,86,452/- and Advertisement expenses of Rs. 6…

M/S. Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT- 8 (1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6901/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6840/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Fdc Limited Acit Circle– 8(1) बिाम/ 142-48, S. V. Road {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} Jogeshwari (West) R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai – 400 102 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7016/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Circle– 8(1) M/S Fdc Limited बिाम/ {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} 142-48, S. V. Road R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Jogeshwari (West) Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 102 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

…, submitted that the assessee has sufficient own funds in the form of share capital and free reserves / surplus and therefore, the interest disallowance u/s 14A was not justified in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) as well as in Pr.CIT V/s Premier finance & trading co. Ltd. (262 ITR 341). The Ld. AR further submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A could not be adjusted in the Book-Profits computed u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Kar…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Time Technoplast Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

….70,128.05 lakhs whereas the investments in the exempt income yielding security are Rs.9,063.06 lakhs. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance by following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.). The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that assessee has made investments in various foreign companies that dividends whereof are taxable and therefore liable to be excluded while computing disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. In view of these facts, we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the ground No.6 of the Re…

Ravi Goenka, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ravi Goenka, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 15, Shirin Chambers, 348/50, Vs. Circle 17(3), Samuel Street, Vadgadi, Room No. 137, 1St Floor, Mumbai-400 003. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacpg 9107 E Appellant Respondent

…tment in the firm is Rs.8.14 crores as on 31.03.2013. He submitted, it clearly indicates that the assessee has not utilized the borrowed funds for the purpose of investment in shares. He relied on the Mr. Ravi Goenka 9 decision of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Further, he submitted that the Assessing Officer relied on the case of Vishnu Anant Mahajan v. ACIT (2012) 147 TTJ (Ahd)/(SB) 142 which is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material on record. We noticed fro…

Shri Faredoon Edal Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6000/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Shri Faredoon Edal Desai The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 22(1)(3), Saroj Wankar, 2Nd Floor, Gool Annexe, Kerawala Vs. Income Tax Officer-22(1)(3), Lodge, Station Road, Santacruz Mumbai-400 012 (W), Mumbai-400 054 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Agmpd9055C अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : V.K. Chaturvedi; Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-34, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-34/Ito-22(1)(3)/It-10043/16-17 Vide Dated 04.06.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Circle-22(1)(3), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2013-14 Vide Order Dated 16.03.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Expenses Amounting To ₹73,574/-. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground:- “Section 37(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961:-

…tments in instrument giving rise to income, hence, no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules 4 Shri Faredoon Edal Desai; AY 13 -14 can be made in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Consequently, the expenditure of ₹53,504/- on account of interest was incurred for the purchase of motor car which is directly related to the business of the assessee. Once, this is the fact, no disallowance can be made. I delete the disallowance and this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is a…

Subhkam Ventrures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-14

…ng exempt income are less than the average own funds and therefore no disallowance could be made under rule 8D2(ii). The Ld. A.R. submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), CIT vs. SBI, DHFL Ltd. (2014) 376 ITR 296 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank vs. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.). The Ld. A.R. therefore prayed that since the assessee’s average investments in the securities yielding exempt income being less than the average own funds, therefore, no disallowance can be made under rule 8D2(ii). The second without prejudic…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventrures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-14

…ng exempt income are less than the average own funds and therefore no disallowance could be made under rule 8D2(ii). The Ld. A.R. submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), CIT vs. SBI, DHFL Ltd. (2014) 376 ITR 296 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank vs. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.). The Ld. A.R. therefore prayed that since the assessee’s average investments in the securities yielding exempt income being less than the average own funds, therefore, no disallowance can be made under rule 8D2(ii). The second without prejudic…