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 366,470 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.

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1762/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

…no interference is called for. The Ld.AR of the assessee further submits that this issue is well settledin CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and several others.The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the consistent view taken by our courts is that if the funds available with the assessee are both interest free and interest bearing, then presumption would arise, that investment would be out of interest free funds available with th…

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1678/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

…no interference is called for. The Ld.AR of the assessee further submits that this issue is well settledin CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and several others.The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the consistent view taken by our courts is that if the funds available with the assessee are both interest free and interest bearing, then presumption would arise, that investment would be out of interest free funds available with th…

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1677/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

…no interference is called for. The Ld.AR of the assessee further submits that this issue is well settledin CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and several others.The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the consistent view taken by our courts is that if the funds available with the assessee are both interest free and interest bearing, then presumption would arise, that investment would be out of interest free funds available with th…

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

…no interference is called for. The Ld.AR of the assessee further submits that this issue is well settledin CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and several others.The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the consistent view taken by our courts is that if the funds available with the assessee are both interest free and interest bearing, then presumption would arise, that investment would be out of interest free funds available with th…

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1675/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

…no interference is called for. The Ld.AR of the assessee further submits that this issue is well settledin CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and several others.The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the consistent view taken by our courts is that if the funds available with the assessee are both interest free and interest bearing, then presumption would arise, that investment would be out of interest free funds available with th…

Kamalnayan Investment and Trading Private Limited., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3593/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri M.A.GohelFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 14ASection 250Section 263

…sessee as on 31/03/2015 amounting to INR.7,47,84,062/- were in excess of the surplus funds available and therefore, the Assessing Officer concluded that the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 383 ITR 529 did not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Assessing Officer, further, noted that investments of INR.3,45,50,677/- were made during the relevant previous year on which the Assessee had earned exempt dividend income of INR.16,68,000/-. In view of the aforesaid the Assessin…

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7269/Mum/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls Finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaac0460H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-5(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Shri Hiten Chande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234C

…to make the investments and therefore, thepresumption that the investments were out of surplus funds stood in assessees favor by the judgments of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in HDFC Bank Ltd. V/s CIT (2016 95 CCH 61) & 36 CIT/V s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014 366 ITR 505), 5.3 We have consideredthe own funds of the assessee, of share capital & free reserves at year-end stoodat Rs.6520.97 Lacs as against investment of Rs.31228.98 Lacs.Nothing has been brought on record by LD. AO to establish, thenext of investments with borrowed funds. In fact, openinginvestments stood at Rs.2663.91 Lacs and the assessee earned pr…

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5346/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…deduction of the shifting loss. 53. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Mumbai vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in [2014] 368 ITR 377 (Bombay), held that loss incurred on account of transfer of securities held under category AFS to HTM was to be allowed as business loss. As the learned CIT(A), while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee, followed the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(…

Jt. CIT (OSD) -2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 3674/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…eduction of the shifting loss. 44. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Mumbai vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in [2014] 368 ITR 377 (Bombay), held that loss incurred on account of transfer of securities held under category AFS to HTM was to be allowed as business loss. As the learned CIT(A), while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee, followed the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1223/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…deduction of the shifting loss. 44. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Mumbai vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in [2014] 368 ITR 377 (Bombay), held that loss incurred on account of transfer of securities held under category AFS to HTM was to be allowed as business loss. As the learned CIT(A), while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee, followed the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(…

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1078/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…deduction of the shifting loss. 44. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Mumbai vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in [2014] 368 ITR 377 (Bombay), held that loss incurred on account of transfer of securities held under category AFS to HTM was to be allowed as business loss. As the learned CIT(A), while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee, followed the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(…

M/S T vs. Motor Company Limited, Chennaivs.ACIT Corporate Circle 3 (1), Chennai

ITA 2405/CHNY/2019[2014-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 92C(2)

…stment made by it, the question of making disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) did not arise. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 wherein it was held that "where assessee's own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than investment in tax free securities, impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing a part of interest payments under Section 14A of the Act (read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962) needs to be set aside". We note that Hon'ble B…

Raajratna Energy Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

ITA 1185/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh Babu, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Swaroop Manava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 14ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1184, 1185/Bang/2025 Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19 M/s Raajratna Energy Holdings Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ltd Plot No 304, Level 3, Surya Chakra House, Road No 78, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500033. PAN : AAECM 6049 G APPELLANT Ward -3(2)(3), Bangalore. RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ramesh Babu, CA Revenue by : Shri. Swaroop Manava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11=.09.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant…

Raajratna Energy Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 1184/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh Babu, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Swaroop Manava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 14ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1184, 1185/Bang/2025 Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19 M/s Raajratna Energy Holdings Pvt. Ltd Plot No 304, Level 3, Surya Chakra House, Road No 78, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500033. PAN : AAECM 6049 G APPELLANT Vs. ITO, Ward -3(2)(3), Bangalore. RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ramesh Babu, CA Revenue by : Shri. Swaroop Manava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11=.09.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant…

Hira Power & Steels Limited, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result ground no 6 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.233/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Hira Power & Steels Limited 557, Urla Industrial Area, Urla Industrial Complex, Raipur (C.G.)-493 221 Pan: Aabcj0138Q ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…ing funds larger than the investments made in tax- free securities then in such cases, disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made.” Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of 11. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) on the aforesaid issue has held and observed as follows: 9 Hira Power & Steels Limited Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) “4. We do not agree. In the case at hand, as recorded by the ITAT, undisputedly the Assessee's own funds and other non- interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax free securities. The ITAT therefore held…

Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 27(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4128/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, Acit, Circle 27(1), G-202, Kukreja Palace, Vallabh, It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Baug Lane, Rajawadi Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400077. Pan No. Agbpg 9487 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Aditya Ramachandran
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50CSection 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, ACIT, Circle 27(1), G-202, Kukreja Palace, Vallabh, IT-office, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Baug Lane, Rajawadi Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400077. PAN NO. AGBPG 9487 G Appellant Respondent : Mr. Aditya Ramachandran Assessee by : Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 29/07/2025 : 31/07/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the a…

ACIT Circle 6 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Cyquator Media Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4048/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…. 13. The coordinate bench further observed that the balance investments were amply covered by the assessee’s own capital and free reserves. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom), which held that if the assessee’s own funds are sufficient to cover investments, a presumption arises that the investments were made out of such funds, thereby ruling out disallowance under section 6 Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd., 14A. This view finds further affirmation in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank…

ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…estment made by it, the question of making disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) didn't arise. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 wherein it was held that "where assessee's own funds and other non-interest interest bearing funds were more than investment in tax free securities, impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing a part of interest payments under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962 needs to be set aside". We also note th…

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2330/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2330/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2618/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv. & Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. Department By : Mr.A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…estment made by it, the question of making disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) didn't arise. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 wherein it was held that "where assessee's own funds and other non-interest interest bearing funds were more than investment in tax free securities, impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing a part of interest payments under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962 needs to be set aside". We also note th…

Laqshya Media Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1339/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaillaqshya Media Limited, Jaganlaxmi, Laqshya House, Next To Rameshwar Temple, Saraswati Baug, Society Road, Jogeshwari (E), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400060 Pan : Aaacl5004C V/S Acit – 10(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…f own surplus funds and not from the interest- bearing borrowed funds. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in not considering the relevant finding of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Limited (2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) that if the assessee's own funds are more than the investments made, then it shall be presumed that the investments made by the assessee are out of its own interest free funds. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that the interest-free loans were advanced by the Appellant to…