How many judgments cite CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.?

1,261 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 8D.

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 14A Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D Section 10(34)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

disallowance of interest expenditure disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 14a book profits revenue expenditure section 115j section 115jb section 32 capital expenditure section 37(1)section 36

Judgments citing CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

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 1245/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

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…

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

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

ITA 1179/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)

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

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

ITA 1178/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)

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

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

ITA 1177/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

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)

M/S. United Spirits Limted, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-7, Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C. Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 250

…of the I. T Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." Thereafter, it was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as under:- "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." Accordingly, we direct the AO to examine the claim of the assessee and if it is found that the own funds available w…

M/S. Goyal Ispat Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1755/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, D.R

Section 10Section 14A

…eleted. We order accordingly." The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal and held as under:- “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.” 6. In the case of Reliance Industries Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the view expressed by Hon’…

Amrish Jayantilal Kakkad, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

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

ITA 1671/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 14A

…k loans were invested in the exempt income yielding assets. Further, ld. Counsel mentioned that the assessee has excess funds and, in that case, the applicability of the finding of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Court’s judgments in the case of (i) CIT vs. HDFC Bank, 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and (ii) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) are applicable in the present case. In this regard, ld. Counsel mentioned that for want of clarity of availability of excess funds, the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that the addition is not to be made in case of existence of…

M/S. R.B. Polymers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 456/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.456/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Rb Polymers Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata 25, R.N. Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Suite-F, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr3117R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata Dated 20.02.2018 Passed In Case No.1220/Cit(A)-2/14-15 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First & Former Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Invoking Section 14A R.W.R 8D(2)(Ii) Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest Amounting To Rs.75614/- Pertaining To Its Exempt Income. Suffice To Say, We Notice At The Outset That The Assessee’S Investments As On 31.03.2009 & 31.03.2010 Read Figures Of Rs.1,71,25,754/- & 1,93,49,912/- (Difference Of Rs.22,24,158/-) As Against Its Non-Interest Bearing Funds In The Nature Of Share Capital Along With Reserves & Surplus Of

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36(2)(i)Section 37

…here is hardly any justification therefore to sustain the impugned disallowance going by CIT vs. Reliance Utility & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340(Bom), CIT vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del) and Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT 298 ITR 298(SC), CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and PCIT vs Rasoi Ltd. GA No. 633/2016(hon’ble jurisdictional high court). We therefore adopt the very analogy herein as well and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. 3. The assessee’s second substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowing bad debts claim of Rs.64,…

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 293/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit – 9(3)(2), Mumbai, M/S Godfrey Phillips India Ltd 418, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Macropolo Building; Ground Floor Maharishi Karve Marg Next To Kala Chowky Post Office Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 033. Pan – Aabcg4768K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Vinod Kumar D.RFor Respondent: S/shri Manish V. Shah & Parveen Jain A.R‘s

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69B

…fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Also, a similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). It was observed by the High Court that where the assessee's capital, profit reserves, surplus and current account deposits were higher than the investment in tax-free securities, it would have to be presumed that investment made by the assessee was out of the interest-free funds available with it and no disallowance was warranted u/s 14A.…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 174/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Podar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 35ESection 37Section 37(1)

…h Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of . CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Limited ITA No. 331 of 2009 ( 0 & M). Copy of the judgment is enclosed at Page No.33-3S. 6.16. That Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HDFC BANK LTD. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) has held that "Where assessee's capital, profit reserves, surplus and current account deposits were higher than the investment in tax-free securities, it would have to be presumed that investment made by the Assessee would be out of the interest-free funds available with Assessee and no disallowance was warranted u/s 14A". 6.17. That simil…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." Thereafter, it was held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as under:- “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.” Accordingly, we direct the AO to examine the claim of the assessee and if it is found that the own funds available…

DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterrises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1799/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1799/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Piramal Enterprises Limited Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Piramal Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, Healthcare Limited) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn4538P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 850/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Piramal Enterprises Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Piramal Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Healthcare Limited) Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओि से / Appellant By : Shri A Mohan, Cit Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओि से / Respondent By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal, Ronak Doshi, Ars’ सुनवाई की िािीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2020 घोर्णा की िािीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2020

For Appellant: Shri A Mohan, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Jehangir D. Mistri

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…on Panel has not addressed the aforesaid contention of the assessee properly. Now, the legal position is fairly well settled by various judicial precedent including the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 that in case 10 | P a g e I TA N o s. 8 5 0 /M um/ 2 0 15 & 1 7 9 9/M um / 20 16 Pir am al E nter pr i s es Li mi ted assessee has sufficient interest free surplus funds available with it, no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The aforesaid ratio laid down by the…

M/S Punjab State Industrial Development Corporatin Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, C-2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1293/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT (DR)

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 43BSection 56

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 1293/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s Punjab State Industrial The ACIT बनाम Development Corporation Ltd. C-2(1), Aayakar Bhawan Plot No. 18, Udyog Bhawan, Sector- Chandigarh 17-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCP1599F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Atul Goyal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Gulsh…

Yash Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2305/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhyash Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Vs Acit-11(3)(2), Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Unit No. 603 & 604, Block No.1, Seepz-Sez, Seepz++, Bhawan, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. Mumbai-400096 Pan : Aaacy2834 R Appellant Respondednt

Section 10Section 10ASection 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Yash Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Vs ACIT-11(3)(2), Room No. 427, 4th Floor, Aayakar Unit No. 603 & 604, Block No.1, SEEPZ-SEZ, SEEPZ++, Bhawan, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. Mumbai-400096 PAN : AAACY2834 R APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Smt. Arati Vissanji Advocate Respondent by Shri Udol Raj Singh CIT-DR Date of hearing 05 -02-2020 Date of pronouncement 22-04-2020 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMEBR : 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the assessment o…

Godavari Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3210/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09. Godavati Corporation P.Ltd., Vs. D.C.I.T.-1(1), Mumbai Industry House, 159, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Churchgate Reclamation, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 020. Pan Aaacg1850D. Appellant. Respondent.

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ssee. Though the decision in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) was rendered in the context of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, it was consciously applied by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while interpreting section 14A of the Act in HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). 8.2 In Rainy Investments (P) Ltd. (supra) it is clarified that share application money being incapable of yielding any tax free income, same would have to be excluded in working out disallowance under Rule 8D. In ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi Trib) (SB), it is held that only those investments are to…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 113/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 2Section 250

…tion is in accordance with the propositions of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HDFC Bank Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bo [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bombay). Thus, we uphold the order of the ld. . Thus, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete this disallowance. CIT(A) and delete this disallowance. Hence, Ground No. 4 of the revenue in both the Hence, Ground No. 4 of the revenue in both the appeals are dismissed. 14. Ground No. 5, is against the enhancing the d…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvind Smartspaces Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1507/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1507/Ahd/2018 With C.O. 79/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T, Arvind Smartspaces Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 24, Government Sevant’S Society, Ahmedabad. Nr. Municpal Market, Off. C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aahca5001H

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R

Section 14ASection 199Section 36(1)(iii)

…meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 6.1 Similarly, we also rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: “Where assessee's capital, profit reserves, surplus and current account deposits were higher than the investment in tax-free securities, it would have to be presumed that investment made by the Assessee would be out of the interest-free funds available with Assessee and no disallowanc…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6482/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 14ASection 43D

…assessee‟s Bank as per page no. 286 to 361 of Paper Book. In support of this submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of various Hon‟ble High Court viz; Bombay High Court in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (383 ITR 529), CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Tin Box Co. (260 ITR 367), Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 82 of 2013(Gujarat HC), UTI Bank Ltd. (32 taxmann.com 370) (Guj HC). It was further argued that Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 1999-2000. On this submission the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Gopalan Enterprises India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1098/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Ajeet, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1098/Bang/2014 Assessment year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s Gopalan Enterprises Income Tax, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle - 11(3), No.5, Richmond Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 561 203. PAN: AABCG 3197L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Kumar Ajeet, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate Date of hearing : 02.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2020 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President This is an app…

Vst Motor Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 3 (4), Chennai

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

ITA 2336/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,AdvocateFor Respondent: M/s.Vijaylaprabha,JCIT,D.R

Section 201Section 40

…e assessee is only ₹.78 lakhs. Hence, it can be safely persumed and concluded that the investments were made only out of own funds of the assessee in the light of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505. Respectfully following the same, no :- 6 -: disallowance of interest under Second limb to Rule 8D(2) of the Rules could be made in the hands of instant case. 10. With regard to administrative expenses under the 3rd limb, before Ld. A.R. fairly conceded for the said disallowance. Accordingly, grounds Nos. 5 to 5.10 raised by the assessee are pa…