CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

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

…on record. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the said orders submits that the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] held that since assessee has interest free funds more than the investments and assets earning tax free income, no disallowance is required u/s. 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submits that the said order of the ITAT for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 be followed and the disallowance be deleted. 12. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the author…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

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

…on record. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the said orders submits that the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] held that since assessee has interest free funds more than the investments and assets earning tax free income, no disallowance is required u/s. 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submits that the said order of the ITAT for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 be followed and the disallowance be deleted. 12. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the author…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

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

…on record. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the said orders submits that the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] held that since assessee has interest free funds more than the investments and assets earning tax free income, no disallowance is required u/s. 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submits that the said order of the ITAT for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 be followed and the disallowance be deleted. 12. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the author…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

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

…on record. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the said orders submits that the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] held that since assessee has interest free funds more than the investments and assets earning tax free income, no disallowance is required u/s. 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submits that the said order of the ITAT for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 be followed and the disallowance be deleted. 12. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the author…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

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

…on record. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the said orders submits that the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] held that since assessee has interest free funds more than the investments and assets earning tax free income, no disallowance is required u/s. 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submits that the said order of the ITAT for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 be followed and the disallowance be deleted. 12. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the author…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

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

…on record. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the said orders submits that the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] held that since assessee has interest free funds more than the investments and assets earning tax free income, no disallowance is required u/s. 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submits that the said order of the ITAT for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 be followed and the disallowance be deleted. 12. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the author…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

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

…on record. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the said orders submits that the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] held that since assessee has interest free funds more than the investments and assets earning tax free income, no disallowance is required u/s. 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submits that the said order of the ITAT for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 be followed and the disallowance be deleted. 12. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the author…

Devbhumi Estates (Mumbai) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sooddevbhumi Estates Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of 43, 4Th Floor, Ajaydeep Building, Income Tax, Cirlce-2(1)(1), 240 Perin Nariman Street, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai.

…yielding assets, then no disallowance under Sec.14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) would be called for in the hands of the assessee. Our aforesaid observation is fortified by the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, we direct the A.O to readjudicate the issue pertaining to disallowance under Sec.14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii), keeping in view the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd.(supra). Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of the „set aside‟ proceedings aff…

Godrej Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1823/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Godrej Industries Ltd., Income Tax-14(1)(2), Phirojshanagar, Eastern Mumbai Vs. Express Highway, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai-/ Respondent) स्थायीलेखा िं./Pan No.Aacg2953R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1858/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Income Tax, Mistry Llp, Range-10(2), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Esplanade Now, The Asst. Commissioner House,29, Hazarimal Of Income Tax, Range-14(1)(2) Somani Marg,Fort,Mumbai Mumbai (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai-/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Prasad, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओर े/ Respondent By : Shri F.V. Irani, Ar ुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 09.04.2019 घोषणाकीतारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2019

…by assessee out of own funds are the interest free funds available with the assessee in the instruments giving rise to exempt income, the same should not be disallowed. This view has support of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., [366 ITR 505]. The CIT(A) has P a g e | 8 discussed the availability of own funds and even in earlier years, identical is the position, the CIT(A) has discussed this in para 7.3 of this order which is reproduced as under: “7.3 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the appellant’s submissions. I find that this issue of disallowance u/s…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1823/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Godrej Industries Ltd., Income Tax-14(1)(2), Phirojshanagar, Eastern Mumbai Vs. Express Highway, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai-/ Respondent) स्थायीलेखा िं./Pan No.Aacg2953R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1858/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Income Tax, Mistry Llp, Range-10(2), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Esplanade Now, The Asst. Commissioner House,29, Hazarimal Of Income Tax, Range-14(1)(2) Somani Marg,Fort,Mumbai Mumbai (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai-/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Prasad, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओर े/ Respondent By : Shri F.V. Irani, Ar ुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 09.04.2019 घोषणाकीतारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2019

…by assessee out of own funds are the interest free funds available with the assessee in the instruments giving rise to exempt income, the same should not be disallowed. This view has support of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., [366 ITR 505]. The CIT(A) has P a g e | 8 discussed the availability of own funds and even in earlier years, identical is the position, the CIT(A) has discussed this in para 7.3 of this order which is reproduced as under: “7.3 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the appellant’s submissions. I find that this issue of disallowance u/s…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Futura Value Retail Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit-9(3)(2), M/S. Future Value 418, 4Th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, V. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaecp3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 6705/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Ita No. Cit(A)/ I.T.305/Dcit-9(3)(2)/2015-16, For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016

…and it is to be presumed that the interest expenditure is not relatable to such investments. Such presumption has also been held to be applicable in the context of section 14A of the Act by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom) and in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom). Therefore, under these circumstances, we affirm the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act out of the interest expenditure. Thus, on this aspect also, Revenue fails.” 14. We have considered rival contentions and per…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

…e Rs.81.89 crores whereas the investments were at Rs.21.31 cores. The Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.” (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and “CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.” (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) deleted the disallowance made under rule 8D2(ii), however, sustained the disallowance under rule 8D2(iii). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that since the suo-moto disallowance has been made by the assessee himself to the tune of Rs.7,71,055/- therefore no further disallowance is required to be made. Accordingly, deleted the entire addition made by…

DCIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Metform Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Metform Corporation, Tax -32(2), 601-602, Siddharth Arcace, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Factory Lane, L.T. Road, Room No. 308, C-10, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Borivali (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400092 Bandra (East), Pan: Aaafm9883D Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2019

…(2)(ii) was not called for. Moreover the ld. CIT (A) has taken the support of the decision of CIT V/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) CIT V/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom), CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014), 366 ITR 505 (Bom) which affirmed by CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) (SC). In view of the above findings, we find that the order of the ld. FAA does not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise and therefore do not require any interference at our end. Accusingly ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 17. Since, the facts and the issu…

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

Appeal is allowed in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G.S. Pannu & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.4280/Mum/2013 I.T.A. No.5121/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) In the matter of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Additional Commissioner of 3rd taxation section floor, Bharat Income Tax, Range-2(1), Bhavan-II, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Rd. Mumbai Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AAACB2902M (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee by : Shri. J.D. Mistry Revenue by : Shri. H.N. Singh : 28.6.2019 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 28.…