CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…ds for making investments in securities. The decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom) and also decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom. HC) are relevant. However, this claim of the assessee that interest free funds available with it are more than investments/loans made by it requires verification of facts from records and for this very limited purposes , we are remitting the issue back to file of the AO for verification from records that its own interest free funds were high…

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

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…ds for making investments in securities. The decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom) and also decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom. HC) are relevant. However, this claim of the assessee that interest free funds available with it are more than investments/loans made by it requires verification of facts from records and for this very limited purposes , we are remitting the issue back to file of the AO for verification from records that its own interest free funds were high…

M/S. Shanti Investments, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 33(3)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

…his position has not been analyzed by the AO or the CIT(A). Hence, I am of the view that if this is a factual position and presumption goes in favour of assessee 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) that the assessee has made interest free advances to various parties out of the interest free funds available with it. In view of these, I direct the AO to verify the factual aspect and if the facts are true, then the AO will allow the claim of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Ord…

Td Toll Road Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Td Toll Road Private Ltd., Dcit-15(3)(1) 361, 3Rd Floor, North Wing, Room No. 451, Reliance Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Santacruz (E), M.K Road, Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct6395C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra Sanghavi Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1646/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.01.2018, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-24/Dcit-15(3)(1)/It-244/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 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 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

…uld be Nil. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., (2009) 178 Taxman 135(Bom.) and decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court dated 23.07.2014 in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom.) . The assessee also relied upon the other case laws to contend its view point that no disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) is warranted as its owned interest free funds available are more than value of investments . 3.3 So far as disallowance by invoking Rule 8D (2)(iii) read with Section 14A of the 1961 Act, it was submitted that disallo…

Kewal Kiran Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kewal Kiran Finance Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd., Kewal Kiran Estate, Vs. 12(3)(2), (Room No. 460/7, L.B. Patel Road, 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Behind Tirupatiudyog, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020). 400063. Pan No. Aadck2902P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ronak Doshi & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2019

…from substantial shareholders fund, presumption stands established that the investments in sister concerns were made by the assessee out of interest-free funds”. Kewal Kiran Finance Ltd. 4 Similar reliance was placed on the decision in DCIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom). On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case the assessee is in the business of promotion of industrial finance, investment and finance and trading in shares and securities. A perusal of the audited accounts indi…

Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…2.30 crore, the investment amounted to ` 66.07 crore. Thus, he submitted, the disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule–8D(2)(ii) is unsustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); ii) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom.); and iii) CIT v/s SBI DHFL Ltd., [2015] 376 ITR 296 (Bom.). 6. As regards disallowance of administrative expenditure under Rule–8D(2)(iii), the learned Authorised Representative submitted, only those investments yielding exempt income during the year can be included in the average v…

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…ard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Citibank (Civil Appeal No. 1549 of 2006) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) following these decisions ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 (in ITA no. 5 Bank of Baorda 4355/Mum/2016) allowed the claim of the assessee and dismissed the Departmental appeal vide para 6 to 8 of the said order. 17. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent as above, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the gro…

Wartsila India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2013-14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Wartsila India Pvt. DCIT 15(3)(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 21st Floor, Kesar Solitaire, M.K. Road, Plot No.5, Sec 19, Vs. Mumbai Palm Beach Rd., Sanpada, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 PAN: AAACW0345D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The pr…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…ut of own interest free funds available with it. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom.) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom.) to contend that no interest expenditure can be disallowed as there will be presumption that the assessee made investments out of own interest free funds available with it. The learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that in AY 2004-05 in assessee‟s own case in ITA no. 212/Mum/2008 vide appellate order dated 19.03.2018, the tribunal…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…ut of own interest free funds available with it. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom.) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom.) to contend that no interest expenditure can be disallowed as there will be presumption that the assessee made investments out of own interest free funds available with it. The learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that in AY 2004-05 in assessee‟s own case in ITA no. 212/Mum/2008 vide appellate order dated 19.03.2018, the tribunal…

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15

…8 & ITA No.223/M/2018 M/s. Welspun Steel Ltd. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) of Rs.1,99,28,763/- by following the decision of jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and “CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.” (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and also decision in the case of assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No.6373/M/2014 whereas the disallowance under rule 8D2(iii) of Rs.3,59,38,825/- was directed to be calculated by reducing the investments which have not yielded exempt income during the year o…

Piramal Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodpiramal Healthcare Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Known As Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax- 7(1) Piramal Tower, Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013

…w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for in its hands. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of (i) HDFC Bank Ltd Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom); (ii) CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom); and (iii) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). In sum and substance, it was the contention of the ld. A.R that as the assessee had sufficient interest free funds which would explain the source of the investments in the exempt income yielding assets, thus no disallowance of any part of the interest expenditure c…