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.

Forbes Marshall Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 354/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253

…has already been laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra). We are also squarely governed by the direct decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom), wherein the Hon’ble High Court categorically held that in-principle, if there are funds available both interest-free and interest bearing, then a presumption would arise that investment would be out of interest-free funds generated or available with the assessee, if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. Hence, in…

Forbes Marshall Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 353/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253

…has already been laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra). We are also squarely governed by the direct decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom), wherein the Hon’ble High Court categorically held that in-principle, if there are funds available both interest-free and interest bearing, then a presumption would arise that investment would be out of interest-free funds generated or available with the assessee, if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. Hence, in…

Forbes Marshall Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253

…has already been laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra). We are also squarely governed by the direct decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom), wherein the Hon’ble High Court categorically held that in-principle, if there are funds available both interest-free and interest bearing, then a presumption would arise that investment would be out of interest-free funds generated or available with the assessee, if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. Hence, in…

Asst CIT(Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4704/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanaditya Birla Nuvo Limited, A4, Aditya Birla Center, S.K.Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaaci 1747H ...... Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ltu-1 World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. ..... Respondent Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ltu-1 World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. ..... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Jahangir D. Mistri/For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 8D(2)

…re own funds of the assessee are sufficient to cover investments, no disallowance u/r.8D(2)(ii) is warranted. In support of his contention ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom) (2) HDFC Bank Ltd. vs.DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom) 3.3 The third argument made by ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee on the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act was that only those investments which have yielded exempt income should be considered for making disallowance. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assess…

M/S. Taurus Home Furnishings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6344/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6344/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Taurus Home Furnishings Ltd. Vs Acit, P-65 South Extension- Ii, Circle-25 (1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct3484A Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing:23.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6344/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Taurus Home Furnishings Ltd. Vs ACIT, P-65 South Extension- II, Circle-25 (1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (APPELLANTT (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCT3484A Assessee by : Sh. V. K. Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing:23.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-10, New…

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Darashaw & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarsl.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak
Section 115JSection 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 456/Mum/2012 2008-09 Darashaw & Dy. CIT, Company Pvt., Ltd, Range 4(1), Flat No. 03, Rajesh Mumbai. Mansion, D. Vachha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 20 2 660/Mum/2012 2008-09 Dy. CIT, Darashaw & Range 4(1), Company Pvt., Mumbai. Ltd, Mumbai - 20 3 225/Mum/2011 2007-08 Darashaw & Dy. CIT, Company Pvt., Ltd, Range 4(1), Mumbai - 20 Mumbai. 4 299/Mum/2011 2007-08 Dy. CIT, Range Darashaw & 4(1), Mumbai. Company Pvt., Ltd, Mumbai - 20 "थायी ले…

Darashaw & Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 456/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarsl.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak
Section 115JSection 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 456/Mum/2012 2008-09 Darashaw & Dy. CIT, Company Pvt., Ltd, Range 4(1), Flat No. 03, Rajesh Mumbai. Mansion, D. Vachha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 20 2 660/Mum/2012 2008-09 Dy. CIT, Darashaw & Range 4(1), Company Pvt., Mumbai. Ltd, Mumbai - 20 3 225/Mum/2011 2007-08 Darashaw & Dy. CIT, Company Pvt., Ltd, Range 4(1), Mumbai - 20 Mumbai. 4 299/Mum/2011 2007-08 Dy. CIT, Range Darashaw & 4(1), Mumbai. Company Pvt., Ltd, Mumbai - 20 "थायी ले…

Supama Commodities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 229/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarsl.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak
Section 115JSection 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 456/Mum/2012 2008-09 Darashaw & Dy. CIT, Company Pvt., Ltd, Range 4(1), Flat No. 03, Rajesh Mumbai. Mansion, D. Vachha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 20 2 660/Mum/2012 2008-09 Dy. CIT, Darashaw & Range 4(1), Company Pvt., Mumbai. Ltd, Mumbai - 20 3 225/Mum/2011 2007-08 Darashaw & Dy. CIT, Company Pvt., Ltd, Range 4(1), Mumbai - 20 Mumbai. 4 299/Mum/2011 2007-08 Dy. CIT, Range Darashaw & 4(1), Mumbai. Company Pvt., Ltd, Mumbai - 20 "थायी ले…

Darashaw & Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 225/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarsl.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak
Section 115JSection 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 456/Mum/2012 2008-09 Darashaw & Dy. CIT, Company Pvt., Ltd, Range 4(1), Flat No. 03, Rajesh Mumbai. Mansion, D. Vachha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 20 2 660/Mum/2012 2008-09 Dy. CIT, Darashaw & Range 4(1), Company Pvt., Mumbai. Ltd, Mumbai - 20 3 225/Mum/2011 2007-08 Darashaw & Dy. CIT, Company Pvt., Ltd, Range 4(1), Mumbai - 20 Mumbai. 4 299/Mum/2011 2007-08 Dy. CIT, Range Darashaw & 4(1), Mumbai. Company Pvt., Ltd, Mumbai - 20 "थायी ले…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5659/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rifaur Rahmandy.Commissioner Of Income Tax 14(2)(1) Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 021 ...... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri F.V.Irani / Chetan KakkaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jangpangi
Section 14ASection 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(1) Room No.432, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 021 ...... Appellant Vs. M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., C-27, “G”Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN: AAACK 5934A ..... Respondent M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., C-27, “G”Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN: AAACK 5934A ..... Appellant Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(1) Room No.432, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,…

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Hq) (Judl) to the Pr. CIT . 14, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5603/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rifaur Rahmandy.Commissioner Of Income Tax 14(2)(1) Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 021 ...... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri F.V.Irani / Chetan KakkaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jangpangi
Section 14ASection 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(1) Room No.432, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 021 ...... Appellant Vs. M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., C-27, “G”Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN: AAACK 5934A ..... Respondent M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., C-27, “G”Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN: AAACK 5934A ..... Appellant Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(1) Room No.432, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,…

M/S Phl Fininvest Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range-7(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 54/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Phl Fininvest Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Piramal Tower, Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Room No. 128A, Vs. Lower Parel (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 013 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Mr. Ronak G. Doshi &For Respondent: Kumar Padmapani Bora, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

…ng assets, therefore, no disallowance of any part of the interest expenditure was called for in its hands. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505] (Bom). Further, the ld. A.R in order to buttress his claim that where the assessee had sufficient interest free and interest bearing funds available, then the presumption would be that investment in the exempt income yielding assets was made out of the interest free funds available with the assessee. In support of his aforesaid contention the as…

Mafatlal Fabrics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7431/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhmafatlal Fabrics P Ltd., Dy Cit 1(2), Mafatlal House, Mumbai Vs. Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai 400 020 Pan Aaacp4133C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Dropsingh Meena
Section 14A

…tion is to be drawn that investments in securities has been made out of own and interest free funds available. The case of the assessee is squarely supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT vs. Reliance Utilities And Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom), wherein it has been held that no disallowance has to be made towards interest expenditure where assessee’s own interest free funds are available for investment in securities. We, therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the decisions laid down by the Hon’ble Bomba…

Ramgopal Textiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5384/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak-Ld.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ee and unless the nexus of borrowed funds with that of investments made by the assessee was established, interest disallowance would not be justified. Reliance was placed on the binding decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (49 Taxmann.com 335) & Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) for the submissions that a presumption was to be drawn in assessee’s favor that the investments were out of free funds available with the assessee. The Ld. AR also raised a plea that for the purpose of disallowance, only those investments were to be considered which actually yielded any exem…

Ramgopal Textiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5383/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak-Ld.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ee and unless the nexus of borrowed funds with that of investments made by the assessee was established, interest disallowance would not be justified. Reliance was placed on the binding decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (49 Taxmann.com 335) & Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) for the submissions that a presumption was to be drawn in assessee’s favor that the investments were out of free funds available with the assessee. The Ld. AR also raised a plea that for the purpose of disallowance, only those investments were to be considered which actually yielded any exem…

DCIT 14 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shetusha Engineers & Constructors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7202/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7202/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR byFor Respondent: None
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7202/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shetusha Engineers & DCIT – 14(3)(2), Constructors Pvt. Ltd. 4th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ 101, Balrama, BKC, M. K. Road, Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AABCS4323C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.01.2020 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05.02.2020 Date of…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…pt income is Rs. 8755 crore i.e. owned funds are more than investments and hence, no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules can be made. In this regard, the CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). In respect of disallowance made by the AO as per rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, the CIT(A) directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance by excluding the investments held as stock-in-trade and strategic investments in subsidiaries and fully owned bank subsidiary. However, the CIT(A) also directed that the disallowance cannot go below the s…

Nhavasheva International Container Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3364/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Ranjan, DR
Section 115J

…contention is that assessee is having sufficient interest free funds and hence no disallowance for interest is to be done under Section 14A of the Act. This claim is supported by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). We find this submission is also cogent. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid case has duly accepted that no disallowance for interest is to be done under Section 14A of the Act if assessee is having sufficient interest free funds available with it. It was also ex…

Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 705/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Ranjan, DR
Section 115J

…contention is that assessee is having sufficient interest free funds and hence no disallowance for interest is to be done under Section 14A of the Act. This claim is supported by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). We find this submission is also cogent. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid case has duly accepted that no disallowance for interest is to be done under Section 14A of the Act if assessee is having sufficient interest free funds available with it. It was also ex…

ACIT, Circle-3, Nainital vs. The Nainital Bank Ltd, Nainital

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5018/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. The Nainital Bank Ltd., Circle-3, Sevan Oakas, Nainital. Mallital, Nainital, Uttarakhand. Pan: Aaact5714D (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Rastogi, Ca Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16Th May, 2017 Of The Cit(A), Haldwani, Relating To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:- “1. That Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case, In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 14A Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Read With Rule 8D Of The I. T. Rules, 1962, Being Expenses Relatable To Income Not Includible In Total Income. 2. That Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case, In Not Considering That Investment Was Made By The Assessee In Tax Free Securities/Funds, Mostly Out Of Its Tax Bearing Fund. 3. That Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case, In Not Considering That The Assessee Failed To Establish The Quantum Of Its Tax Bearing Fund As Well As Tax Free Fund, Which Were Invested In Tax Free Securities/Funds.”

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Rastogi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ents yielding tax free income. Not only the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the appellant's own case (supra) but other High Courts have also affirmed this principle: 1. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd reported in 370 ITR 184 (All). 3 2. HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bombay). 3. UTI Bank Ltd reported in 215 Taxman 8 (Gujarat). Following this settled position of law and the admitted fact that of the total interest free funds available with the appellant, only 4.16% has been invested to yield the tax free income, the addition made is deleted in full. Once the interest component is removed then there could be n…