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 367,368 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.

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Retail Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5959/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Leena Shrivastava
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT Range – 10(3)(2), M/s Future Retail Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ground Floor, Knowledge बिधम/ Road, Mumbai 400 020 House, Off-Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Road, Shyam Vs. Nagar, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400 060 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACP6317L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 867/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Future Retail Ltd. ACIT Range – 10(3)(2), Grou…

S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P.Tld, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is also partly allowed

ITA 79/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumars. Vinodkumar Diamonds, Dcit – 5(3), बनाम/ Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Vs. Off No. Bw 3010, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics514N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, SeniorFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, Sr-DR
Section 14A

…r excess than the investment. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that when interest free funds are in far excess and no disallowance in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in Reliance Utility and Power Ltd,, 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom). On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the Ld. AR submits that no interest disallowance as provided u/s Rule 8(D)(ii) is warranted against the assessee. Even no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is warranted. 29. In alternative submission (in written synopsis) the Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act c…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6766/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Soumya Kulkarni/Mr. Arvind V. Sonde, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…re Capital and Reserve and Surplus) are at Rs.162,20.62 Lacs, whereas the investments are at Rs.72,58.77 Lacs. 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 Colg…

Manoj Kamleshkumar Sukhlani, (Prop. M/S. Manoj Automotive), Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 834/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, with Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE, SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 834/AHD/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Manoj Kamleshkumar Sukhlani, D.C.I.T., Prop. M/s. Manoj Automotive, Vs. Circle-3(3), 43, Sahajanand Estate, Ahmedabad. B/h. Lalji Mulji Transport, Sarkhej Road, Sarkhej, Ahmedbad-382210. PAN: AQOPS4013K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, with Shri P.B. Parmar, A.Rs Revenue by : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr. D.R स…

ACIT 29(1), Mumbai vs. Anand M Shetty, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 769/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 769/Mum/2015 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Anand M. Shetty Tax, Central Circle 29(1), Room 1801, Odyssey1, Hiranandani बिाम/ No.108, 1St Floor, C-10. Gardens, Powai, Pratyankshakar Bhavan, B.K.C, Mumbai-400 076 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaops6358R अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Michael Jerald, Sr. Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Chetan Karia, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Michael Jerald, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Karia, AR
Section 143(3)

…lable with the assessee for investing in the shares is more than the investment, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made by the Assessing Officer in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.(2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 9. The next issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer on account of suppression of Hotel sales receipts. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground No.4: - Shri Ana…

Dy.CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 904/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…ised in these appeals for assessment years 2008- 09 to 2011-12 is that learned CIT(A) erred in directing to delete disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 903/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…ised in these appeals for assessment years 2008- 09 to 2011-12 is that learned CIT(A) erred in directing to delete disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 900/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…ised in these appeals for assessment years 2008- 09 to 2011-12 is that learned CIT(A) erred in directing to delete disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free…

DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited., Mumbai

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

ITA 906/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…ised in these appeals for assessment years 2008- 09 to 2011-12 is that learned CIT(A) erred in directing to delete disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free…

Dy. CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 905/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…ised in these appeals for assessment years 2008- 09 to 2011-12 is that learned CIT(A) erred in directing to delete disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 902/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…ised in these appeals for assessment years 2008- 09 to 2011-12 is that learned CIT(A) erred in directing to delete disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 901/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…ised in these appeals for assessment years 2008- 09 to 2011-12 is that learned CIT(A) erred in directing to delete disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) by relying on HDFC Bank decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 366 ITR 505, without appreciating that the same has been superseded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC). 16. Brief facts on this issue are that while discussing the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has duly submitted that it had sufficient interest free…

Trent Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl. C.I.T.-2(3), Mumbai

ITA 5775/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 35DSection 37(1)

…case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that disallowance made u/s 14A of the I T Act, as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not correct since the reserve & Surplus of the assessee company is more than investment relying on the decision in the case of HDFC Ltd.( 366 ITR 505) without appreciating the fact that the decision of HDFC Ltd. is not applicable to the instant case since the same relate to A.Y. 2001-02 to 2005-06 which is prior to the insertion of Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-09 which is mandatory if A.O is satisfied that the disallowance u/s. 14A is required to be made." 2. "Whether on the fact…

Anamica Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8203/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 14Section 14ASection 4

…As at 31.03.2012 (Rs.) As at 31.03.2013 Share holders’ funds 8,80,43,752 15,05,77,070 Interest bearing funds Nil Nil Investments 3,08,76,900 13,80,70,375 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited reported in 366 ITR 505 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Limited reported in 410 ITR 466 he submitted that when the interest free funds are more than the investments made, the dividend income of which is exempt from tax, no disallowance of interest expenses can be made. 14. So far as Rule 8 D (2) (iii) is concerned the Ld…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Jct Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 84/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 84/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata..............................................................................................Appellant Vs. M/s. JCT Limited.……………………………………………………………………………………..Respondent [PAN: AAACJ 6733 E] I.T.A. No. 2389/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. JCT Limited.………………………………………………………………………………………….Appellant [PAN: AAACJ 6733 E] Vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.........................................…

Jct Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2389/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 84/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata..............................................................................................Appellant Vs. M/s. JCT Limited.……………………………………………………………………………………..Respondent [PAN: AAACJ 6733 E] I.T.A. No. 2389/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. JCT Limited.………………………………………………………………………………………….Appellant [PAN: AAACJ 6733 E] Vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.........................................…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Realtech Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Realtech Infrastructure Income Tax Ltd., D-22, 2Nd Floor Central Circle-15 Room No.354 Defence Colony 3Rd Floor, Jhandewalan New Delhi – 110 024 Extension, New Delhi- 110055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcr4608R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

…wn funds to make interest free advances to its sister concerns and to its outsiders. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in 366 ITR 505, we hold that no disallowance of interest paid by the assessee could be made in the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 3 M/s. Realtech Infrastructure Ltd., 3. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance of remun…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kolhapur vs. Vijaykumar Rajaram Shah, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 608/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…- invoking the provisions of S.14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the quantum of interest free funds available with the appellant company. The judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) was squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The disallowance be deleted. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and on careful perusal of the order passed by the A.O., it reveals that the prerequisites of such disallowance in S. 14A have been ignored which mandate that the A.O. to record satisfaction that the interes…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1247/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…- invoking the provisions of S.14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the quantum of interest free funds available with the appellant company. The judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) was squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The disallowance be deleted. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and on careful perusal of the order passed by the A.O., it reveals that the prerequisites of such disallowance in S. 14A have been ignored which mandate that the A.O. to record satisfaction that the interes…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1246/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…- invoking the provisions of S.14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the quantum of interest free funds available with the appellant company. The judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) was squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The disallowance be deleted. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and on careful perusal of the order passed by the A.O., it reveals that the prerequisites of such disallowance in S. 14A have been ignored which mandate that the A.O. to record satisfaction that the interes…