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.

Shri Dinesh Mills Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle -2(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 781/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 10Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 14ASection 154ASection 194HSection 40(1)(ia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Assessment Appeal(s) by Nos. Year (s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 781/Ahd/2016 2012-13 Shri Dinesh Mills Asst.CIT Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) PB No.2501 Baroda 390 020 Padra Road Baroda 390 020 PAN: AADCS 3115 Q 2. 1191/Ahd/2013 2012-13 DCIT Assessee Cir 2(1) Baroda 3. 3369/Ahd/2016 2013-14 -do-Revenue Assessee 4. 3180/Ahd/2016 2013-14 Assessee ACIT Cir. 2(1) Baroda Assessee by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR…

Tata Advanced Systems Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -1(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2708/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2708/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shir Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…hereinafter the ‘Rules’). For this Revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in his interpretation of judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) whereby relief is to the extent of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) which involves interest component and thus disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) is 3 | P a g e ITAs No.2708& 2191/MUM/2018 not covered by the ruling and hence incorrectly deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in delet…

DCIT-1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Advanced Systems Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2191/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2708/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shir Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…hereinafter the ‘Rules’). For this Revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in his interpretation of judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) whereby relief is to the extent of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) which involves interest component and thus disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) is 3 | P a g e ITAs No.2708& 2191/MUM/2018 not covered by the ruling and hence incorrectly deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in delet…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 3(2), Cent. Range - 3, Mumbai vs. Nitin Fire Protection Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 186/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmi Kant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Section 10ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ot from loans obtained from the assessee and therefore, no part of Interest can be disallowed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Limited [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited [366 ITR 505]. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that the Ld.CIT(A) recorded a finding that assessee was in possession of surplus interest free funds far more than the loans and advances given to sister concern and others. Therefore, in view of the deci…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 3(2), Cent. Range - 3, Mumbai vs. Nitin Fire Protection Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 185/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmi Kant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Section 10ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ot from loans obtained from the assessee and therefore, no part of Interest can be disallowed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Limited [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited [366 ITR 505]. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that the Ld.CIT(A) recorded a finding that assessee was in possession of surplus interest free funds far more than the loans and advances given to sister concern and others. Therefore, in view of the deci…

Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1175/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Mr. M. Balaganesh & Mr. Ravish Soodtata Capital Limited Asst. Commissioner Of One Forbes, Income Tax -2(3), Vs. Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 1 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aadcp9147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit-2(3)(1), M/S Tata Capital Ltd. R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Peninsula Business Park, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, Mr. Jayesh Desai &For Respondent: Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…disallowance of any part of the interest expenditure under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) was liable to be made in its hands. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-2 Ltd. Vs.HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Hon‟ble High Court in its aforesaid order while concluding as hereinabove, had observed as under: 3. With reference to question (A), Mr Suresh Kumar submitted that the ITAT erred in holding that the investments of the Assessee in tax free securities / investments were from the Assessee's own funds. Since the Assessee had paid interest…

ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pasha Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue along with Cross-Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2769/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson &
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)

…5 : ITA Nos. 2769 & 1779/Mum/2017 C.O.No.249/Mum/2018 presumption is that the investments were made out of assessee’s own funds and not out of interest bearing funds. In this connection the Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., [366 ITR 505]. On the disallowance of Rs. 3,90,430/- under rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the disallowance u/s.8D(2)(iii) cannot exceed the actual expenses charged to profit and loss account. During the year, the expenses under the head other expenses were only Rs.81,086/-. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) held that at most the disallowance under rule…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pasha Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue along with Cross-Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1779/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson &
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)

…5 : ITA Nos. 2769 & 1779/Mum/2017 C.O.No.249/Mum/2018 presumption is that the investments were made out of assessee’s own funds and not out of interest bearing funds. In this connection the Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., [366 ITR 505]. On the disallowance of Rs. 3,90,430/- under rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the disallowance u/s.8D(2)(iii) cannot exceed the actual expenses charged to profit and loss account. During the year, the expenses under the head other expenses were only Rs.81,086/-. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) held that at most the disallowance under rule…

Nowrosjee Wadia and Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4133/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…A) observed that the assessee’s share capital and reserves are Rs.63.28 crores whereas investment in shares are at Rs.34,71,00,000/-. Therefore, following the ratio laid down in CIT v. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom), the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. However, he held that the AO can compute 0.5% of the average value of the investments of Rs.12,05,61,937/- on which the disallowance comes to Rs.6,00,000/-. As the assessee has made suo motu disallowance of Rs.10,00,000/-, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no further disallowance is required. 19. Before us,…

M.Pallonji Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1904/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd Income Tax, Range 1(2)(2) Room No.535, 5Th Floor 46-A, Taj Printing Work Cawasji Patel Street Aayakar Bhavan Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aagcm1345P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…f 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 CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and CIT vs. HDFC Bank reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom). 5.1. We find that assessee is engaged in the business of shipping activity and stevedoring activity (non-shipping activity not covered under tonnage tax scheme). During the year, the assessee earned total income of Rs.75.11 Crores out of which 90% amounting to Rs.67.55 Crore is shipping activity and balance 10% amounting to Rs.7.55 Crores…

Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is

ITA 3423/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…Ltd (AY’s 2008-09, 2011-12 to 2013-14) covered in favour of assessee by various decision of superior courts including the decision of Supreme Court in case of UCO Bank (240 ITR 355), Bombay High Court in case of Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334 Bom), HDFC Bank (366 ITR 505 Bom) and also by the decision of tribunal in Bank of India Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1013/Mum/2013 dated 27.08.2018. The learned AR further submits that the learned CIT(A) should have deleted the disallowance instead of directing assessing officer to verify and allow. 25. On the other hand the learned AR for the revenue submits that learned CIT(A) have…

The Tata Power Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly in term of the above

ITA 3534/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 3534/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10)

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi, Milin thakore &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev K Gubgotra
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…s are relatable to exempt income. 7. In regard to disallowance of interest expenses, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that no disallowance can be made 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), wherein presumption was that once the assessee is having interest free funds available more than investments made giving rise to exempt income. In the present case before us, assessee has available interest free funds which is more than the investments made, giving rise to exempt income. Once this is the position, the assessee case is cove…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…d.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition: 1. CIT vs Citi Bank N.A. Civil Appeal No.1549 of 2006 2. American Express International Banking Corp vs CIT 258 UTR 601(Bom) 3. CIT vs Deustche Bank 266 ITR 106-107 (SC) 4. CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd 49 Taxmann.com 335, 366 ITR 505 (Bom) 5. Indian Bank vs DCIT 44 Taxmann.com 339 (Mad) 6. DCIT vs Dena Bank ITA No.1407/M/16 & 1408/M/16 7. DCB Bank Ltd vs. ACIT ITA No.820/M/14 & 615/M/14 8. ACIT vs Dena Bank ITA No.5259/M/14 9. DCIT vs Bank of Baroda ITA No.5605 & 5604/M/16 10. CBDT circular 28 of 2015 CBDT circular 18 of 2015 11. ACIT vs The W.B. State Co-op Bank Ltd ITA No.3…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the

ITA 3951/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 308, Level 3, Ceejay House, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, F Block, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent Dcit Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya International Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 7Th Floor, Twin Arcade, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, C Wing, Military Road, M.K. Road, Marol Maroshi, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. M/S Arshiya International Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Mukundraj Chare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…hare capital of Rs. 458.35 crore against the investment in share of Rs. 145.89 crore. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). However, addition/disallowances under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of Rs. 33,42,417/- was confirmed by ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 281370/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has challenged the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) confirmed by l…

M/S. Nyati Builders Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1201/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin GujarathiFor Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen
Section 14A

…much more than the investments made no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted. To support his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported as 366 ITR 505. 3 ITA No. 1201/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2010-11 4.1 The ld. AR further submitted that during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.3,543/- only. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. State Bank of Patiala in Income Tax Appeal No. 359 of 2017 de…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Igate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. No.342/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 DCIT, Circle-4, iGate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune Vs. 158-162(P), EPIP Phase-II, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560066 PAN : AABCM4573E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / IT(TP) A. No.10/BANG/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Capgemini Technology ACIT, Range-11, Services India Limited Vs. Bangalore (earlier known as iGATE Global Solutions Ltd.), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech…

Vaidyanath Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Udyog, Beed vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the ground relating to disallowance u/s

ITA 986/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

…, and interest free funds are sufficient to cover the investments made, it shall be presumed that investments are made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. Same analogy was applied by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii). Extending the same principle here, we find merit in the submissions of the assessee. However, no material is brought on record by the assessee to show availability of funds for making investment in deposits during the relevant period. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Vaidynanath Sant Eknath Sakhar Udyog, Aurangabad

In the result, the ground relating to disallowance u/s

ITA 1251/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

…, and interest free funds are sufficient to cover the investments made, it shall be presumed that investments are made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. Same analogy was applied by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii). Extending the same principle here, we find merit in the submissions of the assessee. However, no material is brought on record by the assessee to show availability of funds for making investment in deposits during the relevant period. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue…

Rayat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Satara vs. DCIT, Satara

In the result, the ground relating to disallowance u/s

ITA 1436/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

…, and interest free funds are sufficient to cover the investments made, it shall be presumed that investments are made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. Same analogy was applied by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii). Extending the same principle here, we find merit in the submissions of the assessee. However, no material is brought on record by the assessee to show availability of funds for making investment in deposits during the relevant period. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue…

Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Ssk Ltd., Solapur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Solapur

In the result, the ground relating to disallowance u/s

ITA 1031/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

…, and interest free funds are sufficient to cover the investments made, it shall be presumed that investments are made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. Same analogy was applied by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii). Extending the same principle here, we find merit in the submissions of the assessee. However, no material is brought on record by the assessee to show availability of funds for making investment in deposits during the relevant period. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue…