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.

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 505)

M/S. Bcc Enterprises (India) Ltd., Indore vs. The ITO-1(4), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…if the interest free funds are sufficient to meet the investments. In the instant case said presumption was established considering the findings of fact, both by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal (Para 10)” 24. Further in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505(Bom) it is 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 Assessing Officer disallowing apart of interest payments under section 14A was to be set aside”. 25. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. UTI Bank Limited (2013) 215 Taxman 8 (G…

DCIT - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5038/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5038/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-3(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Saurashtra Fuels Pvt. Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 93-C, Mittal Towers, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7271G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri B. V. Jhaveri सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri B. V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. AR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D stating that Assesses own funds were more than investment made relying on Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505)(Bom) and also in the case of CIT vs A.Y.2012-13 Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (313 ITR 340)(Bom) whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 42 of their decision in the case of M/s Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 104-109 of 2015 dated 12- 022018, have upheld the principle of apportionment in cases where the assessee has mixed…

Modern Insulators Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Garg (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 14A

…Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Deepak Vegpro Pvt. Ltd., 406 ITR 496 (Raj.) as well as the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Powers Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) as well as a number of other decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts of Gujarat, Karnataka and Punjab & Haryana. He has referred to the Balance Sheet of the assessee and submitted that the assessee’s own funds are more than Rs. 218.92 crores which are many times more to the investments in question and, therefore, no disallowance on 4 ITA No.…

Tk Toll Road Pvt, Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5088/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Tk Toll Road Private Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-15(3)(1), 361, 3Rd Floor, North Wing Room No.451, Reliance Centre Aayakar Bhavan Prabhat Colony M.K.Road, Santacruz (E) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 055 Pan/Gir No.Aacct6404A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…be any disallowance of interest under second limb of rule 8D(2) of the rules. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd. in 366 ITR 505. 3.2. With regard to disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii), the ld. AO worked out average value of daily balance of investments at Rs.1,31,58,801/- which are enclosed in Annexure-B to the assessment order and applied 0.5% on the same and arrived at the disallowance of Rs.65,794/-. In this regard, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal i…

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) RG-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3996/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Adit (It) 3(1) Vs. The Hongkong & Scindia House, Shanghai Banking R.No.132, 1St Floor Corporation Ltd N.M.Road, 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Mumbai – 38 Road Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & The Hongkong & Vs. Adit (It) 3(1) Shanghai Banking Scindia House, R.No.132, 1St Floor Corporation Ltd 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi N.M.Road, Road Mumbai – 38 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 37Section 44C

…securities and bonds of the assessee which had yielded exempt income. Hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505, there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest on borrowed funds u/s.14A of M/s. Hongkong and Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. the Act. However, certain administrative expenses certainly need to be disallowed u/s.14A of the Act as the law has been amended with retrospective amendment from 01/04/1962 onwards. In this regard, we find tha…

Prakash K. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4566/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri N.R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.4566 & 4567/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2012–13 & 2013–14) Shri Prakash K. Shah 8B, Rajabhadur Mansion 11/43, Ramarind Lane ……………. Appellant For, Mumbai 400 023 PAN – AACPS8291F v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–17(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri N.R. Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing – 19.08.2019 Date of Order – 11.11.2019 O R D E R These are appeals by the assessee against common order 20th June 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–…

ACIT - Circle- 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Esjay International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5776/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Esjay International Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., Gala No.48, 4Th Floor Cir 6(2)(1) Mumbai Laxmi Industrial Estate Room No.504, 5Th Floor Hanuman Gally, Aayakar Bhavan Lower Parel M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaace1066B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…is having sufficient own funds for making investments which had yielded exempt income and by placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505, had directed the ld. AO to delete the disallowance of interest under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. This factual finding of the ld. CIT(A) of availability of own funds with the assessee for making investments had not been controverted by the revenue before us. Hence, we do not deem it fit to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in t…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the A

ITA 1839/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Ramlal Negi

…free funds were in far excess of total investments made. Accordingly by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and in the case of HDFC bank, reported in 366 ITR 505, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the interest disallowance made by the Ld. A.O under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. We find that the factual findings given by the ld CITA on the availability of interest free funds with the assessee company remain uncontroverted by the revenue before us and hence do not find any infirmity in the said finding of the ld CITA.…

M/S. Design Forum International, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3317/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…be presumed that the investments were first made from the interest free funds available with the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: 1. Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. Vs. ACIT (2019) (6) TMI 427 – Tri. Del. 2. CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom. HC) 3. CIT vs. Amod Stamping (P.) Ltd. (2014) 223 Taxman 256 (Guj. HC) 4. PCIT vs. Consumer Marketing (India)(P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 646 of 2015 Guj. HC) 5. M/s R. N. Gupta & Co. Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (ITA No. 848/Chd/2015 dated 12.04.2016 Tri. Chandigarh) In view of the above, the Ld. AR prayed that the addition made be deleted as the same is injud…

M/S. Akash Fashion Prints Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 255/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 255/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बनाम/ M/S. Akash Fashion Prints The Ito, Pvt. Ltd. 238 Saijpur Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. Gopalpur, Shahwadi Ahmedabad-380015 Octrionaka, Narol Ahmedabad-382405 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabca8319C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07/10/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of 24/10/2019 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36

…kash Fashion Prints Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal". 22.1. 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…

Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.(Formerly Aarti Healthcare Ltd Now Merged With Aarti Industries Limited.), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4964/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4964/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. Acit -15(1)(1) [Formerly Aarti Healthcare Ltd. Now Merged Mumbai. बनाम/ With Aarti Industries Ltd.] Vs. 2Nd Floor, Udyog Kshetra, Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mumbai-400 080. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-3517-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala-Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Michael Jerald-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15/10/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald-Ld.DR

Section 115JSection 14A

…ree reserves amounting to Rs.101.62 Crores were sufficient enough to cover the investments of Rs.12.85 Crores made by the assessee. Hence, no interest disallowance would be justified in terms of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505. The assessee raised various other pleas viz. few investments were strategic investments, certain investments would yield taxable income, certain investments did not yield any exempt income, the disallowance should be considered net of interest income, specific borrowings were to be excluded 6 M/s Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. Assessment Year…

Cadbury India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7539/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7539/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mondelez India Foods Private Limited Addl. Cit–Range-5(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mondelez House बनाम/ Unit Number-2001, 20Th Floor Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Tower-3(Wing-C), India Bulls Finance Centre Parel, Mumbai-400 013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-0460-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande-Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V. Janardhan-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 24/07/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short ‘Ay’] 2008-09 Contest Certain Additions / Disallowances / Adjustments Made In Final Assessment Order Dated 18/10/2012 Passed By Ld. Addl. Cit, Range-

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande-Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri V. Janardhan-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…to make the investments and therefore, the presumption that the investments were out of surplus funds stood in assessee’s favor by the judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in in HDFC Bank Ltd. V/s CIT (2016 95 CCH 61) & CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014 366 ITR 505). 5.3 We have considered the same. Upon perusal of financial statements, we find that own funds in the shape of share capital & free reserves at year- end stood at Rs.46266.97 Lacs as against investment of Rs.31228.98 Lacs. Nothing has been brought on record by Ld. AO to establish the nexus of investments with borrowed funds. In fact, opening inv…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals, of the assessee and Revenue, are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3811/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3892/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3789/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) Bajaj Electricals Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of 45/47, Bombay Lite Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), बनाम/ Building, Veer Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4516/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3811/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) The Asst. Commissioner Of Bajaj Electricals Limited Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), 45/47, Bombay Lite Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh

Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the assessee’s share capital of ₹864.29 lacs and reserve and surplus funds available at ₹10,888.15 lacs. According to the learned Counsel, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). When these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, she ITAs No. 3892&4516/Mum/2011, 3789& 3811/Mum/2012 fairly agreed that about the factual aspects, we find that once the assessee’s own interest free funds in the shape of share capital and reserve and surplus is more than investment in giving tax free bonds…

Asst CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals, of the assessee and Revenue, are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4516/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3892/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3789/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) Bajaj Electricals Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of 45/47, Bombay Lite Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), बनाम/ Building, Veer Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4516/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3811/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) The Asst. Commissioner Of Bajaj Electricals Limited Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), 45/47, Bombay Lite Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh

Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the assessee’s share capital of ₹864.29 lacs and reserve and surplus funds available at ₹10,888.15 lacs. According to the learned Counsel, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). When these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, she ITAs No. 3892&4516/Mum/2011, 3789& 3811/Mum/2012 fairly agreed that about the factual aspects, we find that once the assessee’s own interest free funds in the shape of share capital and reserve and surplus is more than investment in giving tax free bonds…

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals, of the assessee and Revenue, are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3892/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3892/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3789/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) Bajaj Electricals Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of 45/47, Bombay Lite Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), बनाम/ Building, Veer Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4516/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3811/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) The Asst. Commissioner Of Bajaj Electricals Limited Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), 45/47, Bombay Lite Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh

Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the assessee’s share capital of ₹864.29 lacs and reserve and surplus funds available at ₹10,888.15 lacs. According to the learned Counsel, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). When these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, she ITAs No. 3892&4516/Mum/2011, 3789& 3811/Mum/2012 fairly agreed that about the factual aspects, we find that once the assessee’s own interest free funds in the shape of share capital and reserve and surplus is more than investment in giving tax free bonds…

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 6490/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Chaniyari (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251Section 254(1)

…mpanies and the same have been used for investing purpose. This is evident from the balance sheet of the appellant company as at March 31, 2008. In HDFC Bank Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) 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 of assessee's own funds in…

Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2919/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Adhiraj Constructions Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1) 303, Sharda Chambers Mumbai Sir V.T Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aacca3372Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…see is having sufficient own funds which are much more than the investments made by the assessee which had yielded exempt income and hence by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom), no disallowance of interest under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the 3 M/s. Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rules could be made. Hence we direct the ld AO to straight away delete the disallowance of Rs 26,84,729/- made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. 5.1. With regard to disallowance of administrative expenses made under Rule 8D(2)(iii)…

Vikas Omprakash Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Vikas Omprakash Agarwal, D.C.I.T., Prop. Pf M/S. Nilin Industries, Vs. Circle-3(2), 5203/3, Phase-Iv, Gidc, Ahmedabad. Vatva, Ahmedabad-382445. Pan: Adqpa4057Q

…meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 8.1 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 disallowan…

Crompton Greaves Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5390/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 14(1)Section 14ASection 35

…It is seen that there was sufficient capital and reserve at the disposal of the appellant and this fact was not disputed by the AO. But in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SBI DHRL Ltd ( 376 ITR 296) and HDFC Bank Ltd ( 366 ITR 505) it is seen that the Jurisdictional High Court held that if there is sufficient capital and reserve at the disposal of the appellant then presumption can be taken that the investment has been made out of the non interest bearing fund. Therefore, in view of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision, is directed to delete the addition u/s 14A…

ACIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Crompton Greaves Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5295/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 14(1)Section 14ASection 35

…It is seen that there was sufficient capital and reserve at the disposal of the appellant and this fact was not disputed by the AO. But in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SBI DHRL Ltd ( 376 ITR 296) and HDFC Bank Ltd ( 366 ITR 505) it is seen that the Jurisdictional High Court held that if there is sufficient capital and reserve at the disposal of the appellant then presumption can be taken that the investment has been made out of the non interest bearing fund. Therefore, in view of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision, is directed to delete the addition u/s 14A…

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

What is CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

M/S. Bcc Enterprises (India) Ltd., Indore vs. The ITO-1(4), Indore

DCIT - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Modern Insulators Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

Tk Toll Road Pvt, Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) RG-3(1), Mumbai

Prakash K. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

ACIT - Circle- 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Esjay International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Navi Mumbai

M/S. Design Forum International, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S. Akash Fashion Prints Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.(Formerly Aarti Healthcare Ltd Now Merged With Aarti Industries Limited.), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Cadbury India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

Asst CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

Vikas Omprakash Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

Crompton Greaves Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

ACIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Crompton Greaves Limited, Mumbai