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 Cent. Cir. 3(4), Central Range-3, Mumbai vs. Sunteck Realty Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6578/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…exempt income is of Rs.247.60 crores only. There was no dispute on the above data during the course of hearing. In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : “15. It is clear that for the first time in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) that this Court took a view that the presumption which has been laid down in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) with regard to investment in tax free securities coming out o…

Sunteck Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6062/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…exempt income is of Rs.247.60 crores only. There was no dispute on the above data during the course of hearing. In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : “15. It is clear that for the first time in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) that this Court took a view that the presumption which has been laid down in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) with regard to investment in tax free securities coming out o…

Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6759/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6759/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Welspun Steel Limited बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(3) B-Wing, Trade World, 9Th Air India Building, 19Th Vs. Floor, Kamala Mill Floor, Nariman Point, Compound, S. B. Marg, Mumbai-400021. Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5308G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Farrokh Irani Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -39, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 210Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…epresentative of the assessee has argued that the assessee’s own funds is more than investment, therefore, in the said circumstances, no disallowance is required 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). It is also argued that the no disallowance is required in view of the provisions u/s 36(1)(iii) in respect of investment in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-III Pune Vs. Sharda Erectors P. Ltd. (2016) 76 taxmann.com 107 (Bom) and in view of the decision of 3 A.Y.2013-14 Hon’ble ITAT in ITA. No.837/Chd/20…

Hira T. Jhamtani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(1), Mumbai

ITA 7388/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 7388/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hira T. Jhamtani……...........…...…………..…...............................................................................Appellant 19, Tulips Union Part, 4Th Floor, Pali Hill Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. [Pan: Adapj 8790 R] Vs. Acit 18(1), Mumbai……………….......…..…………………....…................................................Respondent Mumbai. Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2020 Order

Section 14ASection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI [BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. No. 7388/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hira T. Jhamtani……...........…...…………..…...............................................................................Appellant 19, Tulips Union Part, 4th Floor, Pali Hill Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. [PAN: ADAPJ 8790 R] Vs. ACIT 18(1), Mumbai……………….......…..…………………....…................................................Respondent Mumbai. Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Rajesh…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathapiramal Enterprise Limited Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(3) (Formerly Known As Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35

…part of the interest expenditure can be made u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii). Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of (i) HDFC Bank Ltd Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom); (ii) CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom); and (iii) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). In fact, a similar issue had came up before the Tribunal in the assesses own case for the immediately preceding year i.e A.Y 2008-09 viz. M/s Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (ITA No. 5471/Mum/2017, dated 30.07.2018). The Tribunal after deliberating on the is…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Construction Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, Aayakarbhavan, 4Th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani / Ms. Shweta Mahadik, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4th floor, AayakarBhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACH0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, AayakarBhavan, 4th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11th floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West),…

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2351/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, Aayakarbhavan, 4Th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani / Ms. Shweta Mahadik, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4th floor, AayakarBhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACH0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, AayakarBhavan, 4th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11th floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West),…

Mansh Pannalal Bagdia, Jalna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalna

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

ITA 1210/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1210/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manish Pannalal Bagdia, Bagadia Palace, Rajendra Prasad Road, Jalna-431203 Pan :Ahopb0111E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Akshay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1210/PUN/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manish Pannalal Bagdia, Bagadia Palace, Rajendra Prasad Road, Jalna-431203 PAN :AHOPB0111E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalna Circle, Jalna ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Akshay Agrawal Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.…

Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 106/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri. Percy J. Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Uodhalraj Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…t of the correlating interest expenditure was called for under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii). In order to drive home 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. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). 30. Per contra, the ld. D.R relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that the A.O had rightly worked out the disallowance under Sec. 14A as per the methodology prescribed in Rule 8D. 31. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue before us and find substantial force in the claim…

M/S. Industrial Develop, Ment Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 3371/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 1998-1999

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

Section 143(3)

…curities and, therefore, it can be presumed that the investments in shares and securities is made out of own and interest free funds available with the assessee. The case of assessee is squarely covered by the following decisions :- i) CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) ii) CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) Since the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we, therefore, are inclined to set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. Since we have allowed the relief to the assessee on th…

M/S. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 515/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.515/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri D.S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.515/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Hindusthan National Glass & Vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2), Kolkata Industries Ltd. 2, Red Cross Place, BBD Bag, Kolkata-700001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACH 7557 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri D.S. Damle, FCA Respondent by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 31/10/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 606/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 605 & 606/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja Centre Air India Building, 19th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 21 PAN: AACCP7995G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NOs. 1476 & 1479/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy Commissioner of Income Tax M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja C…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 605/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 605 & 606/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja Centre Air India Building, 19th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 21 PAN: AACCP7995G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NOs. 1476 & 1479/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy Commissioner of Income Tax M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja C…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 605 & 606/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja Centre Air India Building, 19th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 21 PAN: AACCP7995G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NOs. 1476 & 1479/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy Commissioner of Income Tax M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja C…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1476/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 605 & 606/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja Centre Air India Building, 19th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 21 PAN: AACCP7995G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NOs. 1476 & 1479/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy Commissioner of Income Tax M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja C…

The Supreme Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4673/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 115JSection 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 43(6)Section 45Section 51Section 80

…ee. He has held that the assessee has not been able to bring one- to-one nexus between the available interest free funds the investment earning exempt income. In this regard, we note that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) had expounded that if interest free funds are sufficient to cover the impugned investment, no disallowance on 20 The Supreme Industries Ltd. ITA Nos. 4673 & 4754/Mum/2014 account of diversion of interest needs to be done and the assessee is not required to show any one-to-one n…

DCIT- CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2764/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…crores, which exceeds the value of the investment of Rs. 594.29 crores. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 (bom) and CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505(bom). The assesee has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Limited 410 ITR 466 (SC). The Ld. AR, further submitted that in respect of disallowances of expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowances may be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned and only those investments,…

Jsw Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 5387/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S Rifaur Rahman (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ade out of own funds and that borrowed funds have not been used for the purpose of investment. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Pvt Ltd 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 (Bom). 3 ITA 5387 & 5388/Mum/2018 JSW Cement 3. The reply of the assessee was not accepted by AO. The AO invoked the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) and made disallowance of Rs.12,70,089/- on account of interest expenditure. The AO, after giving set off of suo moto disallowance, made the addition accordingly. On appeal before the CIT(A), the acti…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5845/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…o decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 356 ITR 549 and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “9. In the present case, we find that the facts and issues that are covered by the aforesaid judgment squarely apply to the facts and issues ra…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5846/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…o decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 356 ITR 549 and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “9. In the present case, we find that the facts and issues that are covered by the aforesaid judgment squarely apply to the facts and issues ra…