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.

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

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

ITA 1030/PUN/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara vs. Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Satara

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1307/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1307/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara Circle, Satara …. Vs. Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., 12-B, Raviwar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Powai Naka, Satara - 415001 Pan: Aaaap0381L अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pankaj Garg प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.K. Kulkarni घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj GargFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…r 2010-11 in ITA No.1725/PN/2014, order dated 18.05.2016 and for assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.491/PUN/2015 order dated 17.05.2017. The Tribunal in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) had held that broken period interest was allowable as deduction. The relevant findings of Tribunal in para 8, which are as under:- “8. Similar issue arose before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. repo…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gcil Finance Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3092/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. R.C JainFor Respondent: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3092/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Geecee Fincap Income-tax-1(1)(2) Limited ( Formerly 579, Aayakar Bhavan, known as GCIL Finance v. M.K. Road, Ltd.), 209-210, Arcadia Mumbai-400020 Bldg, 2nd Floor, 195, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AADCG0600Q आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7061/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ G…

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 2685/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.J. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Jang Pangi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…We find that our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. (Supra), which thereafter had been followed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). We thus are of the considered view that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, as well as the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for the immediately preceding years, viz. A.Ys. 2002-03 a…

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (DCIT) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 7606/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.J. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Jang Pangi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…We find that our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. (Supra), which thereafter had been followed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). We thus are of the considered view that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, as well as the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for the immediately preceding years, viz. A.Ys. 2002-03 a…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Zoom Entertainment Network Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 3385/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 4OSection 9

…g :- (i) If the assessee has non-interest bearing own funds more than investment in instrument for earning exempt income, no disallowance for interest should be done on touchstone of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). (ii) In considering the average value of investments for disallowance u/s. 14A only those investment should be considered on which exempt income has been earned. (iii) Disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed exempt income earned. 22. We direct accordingly. Needless to add the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. Apropo…

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

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

ITA 1244/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1176/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri M.K. Kulkarni and S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…/- invoking the provisions of S.14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the quantum of interest free funds available with the appellant company. The judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) was squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The disallowance be deleted. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and on careful perusal of the order passed by the A.O., it reveals that the prerequisites of such disallowance in S. 14A have been ignored which mandate that the A.O. to record satisfaction that the intere…

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

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

ITA 1176/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1176/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri M.K. Kulkarni and S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…/- invoking the provisions of S.14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the quantum of interest free funds available with the appellant company. The judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) was squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The disallowance be deleted. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and on careful perusal of the order passed by the A.O., it reveals that the prerequisites of such disallowance in S. 14A have been ignored which mandate that the A.O. to record satisfaction that the intere…

Ascent Finechem Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 440/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent (S) Appellant Respondent 1-2 438-439/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Ascent Finechem Pvt. A.C.I.T, Circle- & Ltd., 1(1)(2), 2009-10 11, Ground Floor, Ahmedabad. Suryarath, B/H. Whilte House, Panchawati, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan No.Aabca6349Q

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Dr. D.R
Section 10B

…eet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 16.1 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…

Ascent Finechem Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 439/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent (S) Appellant Respondent 1-2 438-439/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Ascent Finechem Pvt. A.C.I.T, Circle- & Ltd., 1(1)(2), 2009-10 11, Ground Floor, Ahmedabad. Suryarath, B/H. Whilte House, Panchawati, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan No.Aabca6349Q

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Dr. D.R
Section 10B

…eet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 16.1 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…

Ascent Finechem Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 438/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent (S) Appellant Respondent 1-2 438-439/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Ascent Finechem Pvt. A.C.I.T, Circle- & Ltd., 1(1)(2), 2009-10 11, Ground Floor, Ahmedabad. Suryarath, B/H. Whilte House, Panchawati, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan No.Aabca6349Q

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Dr. D.R
Section 10B

…eet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 16.1 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…

Dcb Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 785/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit-2(3)(1), R.No. 552, 5Th M/S Dcb Bank Ltd. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. (Formerly Development Road, Mumbai-400020. Credit Card Ltd.) 6Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacd1461F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Dcb Bank Ltd. Acit-2(3)(1), R.No. 552, (Formerly Development Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Credit Card Ltd.) 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Tower A, Peninsula 400020. Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aaacd1461F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 28

…t is stated that the assessee-bank has own funds of Rs.1153.95 crores whereas tax-free investments are Rs.164.39 crores as on 31.03.2014. Relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom), it is stated that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) is called for. Further, it was stated before the AO that if the tax-free investments are as stock-in-trade, then no disallowance could be made u/s 14A. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT v. India Advantage Securities Ltd…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dcb Bank Limited (Formerly Development Credit Bank Limited), Mumbai

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

ITA 707/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit-2(3)(1), R.No. 552, 5Th M/S Dcb Bank Ltd. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. (Formerly Development Road, Mumbai-400020. Credit Card Ltd.) 6Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacd1461F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Dcb Bank Ltd. Acit-2(3)(1), R.No. 552, (Formerly Development Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Credit Card Ltd.) 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Tower A, Peninsula 400020. Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aaacd1461F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 28

…t is stated that the assessee-bank has own funds of Rs.1153.95 crores whereas tax-free investments are Rs.164.39 crores as on 31.03.2014. Relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom), it is stated that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) is called for. Further, it was stated before the AO that if the tax-free investments are as stock-in-trade, then no disallowance could be made u/s 14A. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT v. India Advantage Securities Ltd…

Icici Securities Ltd ( Earlier Known As Icici Brokerage Services Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of department is dismissed, as above

ITA 5789/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40A(2)(b)

…f CIT(A) and submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. (supra) and also decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 368 ITR 377 (Bom). 43. We find that the above issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and thus we uphold the decision of CIT(A) on this issue. 44. Resultantly, appeal of the assessee i…

Spc Life Sciences Private Limited, Vadodara vs. DCIT Circle 2(1) (1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1578/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1578/Ahd/2018 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1628/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Sciences Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Years – 2012-13 & 2013-14 established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 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…

Spc Lifesciences Private Limited, Vadodara vs. DCIT Circle 2(1) (1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1628/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1578/Ahd/2018 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1628/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Sciences Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Years – 2012-13 & 2013-14 established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 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…

Income Tax Officer 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Lafit Lighting Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 699/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Karthik Natarajan,ARFor Respondent: Ms Abha Kala Chanda, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…t that the assessee has 5 ITAs No.669 & 500/Mum/2018 earned dividend income of ` 2,95,87,087/-. Hence, in view of the above fund position we are of the view that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom HC), the presumption of investment in instrument giving rise to exempt income is out of interest free funds available with the assessee is in favor of assessee. Hence, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same. 5. As regards to the issue of assessee’s appeal regarding disallowance of expense…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…be first used to invest in assets yielding exempt income applies with equal force." Reliance in this regard is placed on the following catena of judgements: i. CIT versus HDFC Bank Ltd in ITA No. 330 of 2012 dated 23 July 2014 (Bombay High Court) 1[2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bombay) ii. Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 630 iii. H.T. Media Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, New Delhi- [2017] 399 ITR 576 (Delhi) VERSUS THE ACIT, ITA No. 5547/De1/2012, C.O.No.95/DeI/2013 And ITA.No.6030/Del/2015 ITA No.- 1531/Del/2017. M/s Resurgere Mines and Minerals India L…

Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait B.S.C, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2323/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita No. 2323/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Bank Of Bahrain & Kuwait Asst. Director Of Income Tax B.S.C. Jolly Maker Chambers Ii, (International Taxation) -3(2) 225, Nariman Point, Vs Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 44C

…in the exempt income yielding assets, then no disallowance under Sec.14A would be called for in the hands of the assessee. Our aforesaid observation is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that the ld. D.R had not pointed out any perversity in the observation of the CIT(A) that the assessee possessed interest free funds much higher than the amount of the investments which were made by it in the tax free investments. Accordingly, we uphold the deletion of the disallowance of in…

Pranava Electronics Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 84/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazm/S.Pranava Electronics Pvt. Ltd. No.20, Eden Park, Flat No.101, 1St Floor, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru-560001. … Appellant Pan:Aadcp2196C Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent & (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri K.R.Pradeep, Advocate & Ms. P.Girija, Ca. Revenue By : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, Advocate & Ms. P.Girija, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Pranava Electronics Pvt. Ltd. No.20, Eden Park, Flat No.101, 1st Floor, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru-560001. … Appellant PAN:AADCP2196C Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 5(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent AND (By Revenue) Assessee by : Shri K.R.Pradeep, Advocate & Ms. P.Girija, CA. Revenue by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 11/07/2019 Date of pronouncement: 17/07/2019 O R D E R Per N.V. VASUDEVAN, VP: ITA No.84/Bang/2019 is the appeal…