CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

DCIT Circle-6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kohinoor Planet Construction Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…A) came to the conclusion that the assessee has own funds which were far in excess of the investments that are capable of yielding exempt income. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) following the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] and CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] deleted the disallowance. Following the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that a presumption arises that when assessee is having own funds much more than the investments that are capable of yielding exempt income were made out of the own funds of the assessee and no…

Rosa Power Supply Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…co–ordinate bench of the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.” (2001_178 taxman 135 (Bom.) and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.). Accordingly, we are setting aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and directing the A.O. to delete the disallowance under rule 8D2(ii). So far as the disallowance under rule 8D2(iii) is concerned, we find that the A.O. has calculated the average investments at ` 2,80,54,524/– as per Annexure–A attached with the assessment order whic…

M/S Sinnar Thermal Power Ltd(Formerly Rattanindia Nasik Power Ltd), Delhi vs. Dy CIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

…cordingly, it was pleaded that no disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules could have been made in the instant case. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom). M/s. Sinnar Thermal Power Limited (Formerly Rattanindia Nasik Power Limited) 8.3. We find that the ld AR had furnished the following chart which clearly provides the availability of interest free funds with the assessee companies for various assessment years as under:- Sr. Assessee Company Assessment Position of the Investment in No. Yea…

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrastructure, Mumbai

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

…ted in page 14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A), which is much more than the investments that had actually yielded exempt income to the assessee. Hence, following the ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of HDFC Bank reported in 366 ITR 505, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted disallowance of interest under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. With regard to 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, the 3 M/s. Reliance Infrastructure ld. CIT(A) had only directed the ld. AO to consider only investments which had actually yielded exempt income. This we find is in consonance with the de…

ITO 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Archway Investment Co.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed as above

…interest free funds are available, which are more than the impugned investment then no disallowance under section 8D(ii) of the Act is permissible is sustainable on the touchstone of honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) and Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 487 OF 2015 dated 19.9.2017). Hence this ground is allowed. 11. As regards the disallowance under section 8D(iii) only those investments are to be considered which have earned exempt income on the touchstone of ITAT special men decision in the case of Vireet Investment P. Ltd.(su…

Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range - 7(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2744/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ M/S. Roha Dyechem Pvt. Dcit, Central Range-7(4) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. A44/45, Road No.2, Karve Road, Churchgate- Midc, Andheri (E), 400020. Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacr4974P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals(Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Additional Disallowance Of Rs.44,13,583/- U/S 14A R.W.S. 8D Under Normal Provisions As Well As U/S 115Jb Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Disallowance Of Rs.44,13,583/- Should Be Deleted. Without Prejudice, The Disallowance Be Appropriately Reduced. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend And/Or Alter The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

…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 : “15. It is clear that for the first time in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) that this Court took a view that the presumption which has been laid down in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) with regard to investment in tax free securities coming out of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Blue Star Investments & Financial Service Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

…ich had yielded exempt income. If assessee is found to have sufficient interest free funds in its kitty to make investments which had yielded exempt income, then the ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of HDFC Bank reported in 366 ITR 505 would come into operation and in such scenario, no disallowance of interest need to be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. The ld. AO is hereby directed to give proper finding with regard to aforementioned facts and decide the issue in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue for A.Y.2012-13 are allowed for statisti…

DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Holtels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4088/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2015-16) The Dcit M/S Chalet Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 4(2), Plot No. C-30, Block –G, Central Range-4 Bandra Kurla Complex, Pr. Cit (C)-2, फनाभ/ Bandra (East), R. No. 1918, 19 Th Floor, Air India Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaack0411E अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri V. Sreekar, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2021

…t and it is clear that the assessee has interest free funds available with it, which is much more than investment made hence, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the M/S Chalet Hotels Pvt. Ltd AY 15-16 case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), the interest under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, cannot be disallowed. This issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. Coming to the next issue of disallowance of expenses i.e. administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, we noted that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 13,17,233/- only but CIT(A) restricted the…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Dhoot Industrial Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito-3(1)(2) Dhoot Industrial Finance Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 666, 6Th Floor, 504, Raheja Centre, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 214, Free Press Journal Road, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 1836 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No.240/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.378/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Dhoot Industrial Finance Pvt. Ltd. Ito-3(1)(2) Room No. 666, 6Th Floor, 504, Raheja Centre, Vs. 214, Free Press Journal Road, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Narimanpoint, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 1836 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri Vidhyadhar V. Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian : 18.03.2021 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-616/2016-17 Vide Order Dated 20.11.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Ito-3(1)(2), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2

…A.O. No doubt the balance is available with the assessee but let the A.O. verify the fact situation, but on principle the assessee is eligible for the claim in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom). On principle, the issue is allowed but subject to verification of the facts by the A.O. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2021. (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Vice…

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…se interest free funds were sufficient enough to explain the investments made by the assessee which had yielded exempt income. Accordingly, the assessee placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited 366 ITR 505 and 383 ITR 529 to drive home the point that interest free funds available with the assessee were sufficient enough to cover the investments that had yielded exempt income. 3.1. We find that the ld. AO disregarded the aforesaid contentions of the assessee and proceeded to disallow Rs.85,90,80,262/- u/s.14A of the Act r.w.Rule 8D(2) of the Rules.…

Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…nterest free funds in its kitty and hence, no disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules could be made in the facts of the instant case in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in 366 ITR 505. This factual finding was not controverted by the revenue before us. 3.2. We find that assessee had made suomoto disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs.33,62,493/- and had indeed pleaded before the lower authorities that the same should be reduced while determining taxable income as there was no exempt income derived by the assessee. We find t…

DCIT Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT), ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: HON’BLE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM Dy.CIT, Circle-7(2)(1) Vs. M/s. Mahindra Lifespace Room No.126A, 1st Floor Developers Ltd., 5th Floor, Mahindra Tower Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Dr. G.M.Bhosale Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 PAN/GIR No.AAACG8904C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.65/Mum/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.2337/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year :2011-12) Dy.CIT, Circle-7(2)(1) Vs. M/s. Mahindra Lifespace Room No.126A, 1st Floor Developers Ltd., 5th Floor, Mahindra Tower Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road,…

Cadbury India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2214/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Acit Range-5(1), M/S Mondelez India M. K. Road, Aayakar Foods Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, बिधम/ Bhavan, Tower-3 (Wing C), India Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco0460H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Hiten Chande, Ars. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Sunil Jha, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (): The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel –Iii, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

…to make the investments and therefore, the presumption that the investments were out of surplus funds stood in assessee‟s favor by the judgments of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court rendered in in HDFC Bank Ltd. V/s CIT (2016 95 CCH 61) & CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014 366 ITR 505). 5.3 We have considered the same. Upon perusal of financial statements, we find that own funds in the shape of share capital & free reserves at yearend stood at Rs.46266.97 Lacs as against investment of Rs.31228.98 Lacs. Nothing has been brought on record by Ld. AO to establish the nexus of investments with borrowed funds. In fact, opening inves…