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 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 14A Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D Section 10(34)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

disallowance of interest expenditure disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 14a book profits revenue expenditure section 115j section 115jb section 32 capital expenditure section 37(1)section 36

Judgments citing CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Tata Technologies Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 168/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…erify the claim of assessee in this regard and in case own funds of assessee are more than investments, then no disallowance is warranted under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules on account of dictate of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). 17. Now, coming to second disallowance made i.e. under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. The Assessing Officer is again directed to work out the disallowance by considering investments which have yielded dividend income. The Assessing Officer shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in this regard. The ground of appeal N…

M/S Manipal Global Education Services P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 236/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.VFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel

…of Vireet Investments P Ltd (165 ITD 27). 10. On the contrary, the Ld D.R supported the order passed by the assessing officer. 11. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505) that no disallowance out of interest expenditure u/r 8D(2)(ii) is called for when own funds available with the assessee is in excess of the value of investments. Accordingly we direct the AO to compare the own funds available with the assessee against the value of investments and accordingly apply the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) by duly followi…

The DCIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Amjay Medi-Max India Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2695/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri A. L. Thakkar, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…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 disallowanc…

Asst CIT 11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Yash Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6288/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)

…,06,967/- while interest free advances given were Rs.6,04,77,159/-. We find merits in the contentions of the Ld. A.R. that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd Vs CIT (2014 )366 ITR 505 (Bom) wherein it has been held that no disallowance is to be made where the interest free funds were available with the assessee are more than the interest free advances. We further notice that assessee has made suo-moto disallowance of 3.23% p.a. after giving weightage to the interest free funds available with the assessee. In the earlier year a…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…e quantum of investment yielding exempt income. It was submitted that as against the total investment of Rs. 1233.40 Crores, the Assessee had available funds of Rs. 4585.85 crores. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. Reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities Ltd vs. CIT reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) has held that there is presumption that the investments are made from self owned funds unless the contrary is proved. Moreover, on the peculiar facts of the present case, it will kindly be appreciated that the Assessee Company promoted Jindal Power Limited (JPL) to build 1000…

M/S. Patel D.J. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 453/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 453/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri U.S Bhati & AbhimanyuFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. Asstt. Years 2011-12 6 10.2 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…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6930/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 28Section 73

…6 M/s. Sharekhan Ltd. contentions of the Ld. A.R. that ld CIT(A) has correctly deleted the disallowance. The case of the assessee is also squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC). We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. and also the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra), hold that the disallowance under rule 8D2(ii) was rightly dele…

M/S. Kankoo Paints Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1197/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare &For Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen

Section 14A

…d in respect of interest. To support her contentions the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision 4 ITA No. 1197/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009-10 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported as 366 ITR 505. 6. On the other hand Ms. Shabana Parveen representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for confirming the disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. 7. Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. The assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.2,12,618/-, exempt from tax. No suo-moto disallo…

The Dcitanand Circle, Anand vs. Elecon Engineering Co.Ltd., Anand

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148

…eet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 20.2 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…

The Dcitanand Circle, Anand vs. Elecon Engineering Co.Ltd., Anand

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1316/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148

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

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

ITA 696/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Wartsila India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax-15(3)(1) “Wartsila India Limited) Aayakar Bhavan 21St Floor, Kesar Solitaire, Mumbai Plot No.5, Sector 19 Palm Beach Road, Sanpada Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0345D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Wartsila Diesel India Income Tax-15(3)(1) Private Limited 21St Floor, Kesar Solitaire, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai Plot No.5, Sector 19 Palm Beach Road, Sanpada Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0345D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM M/s. Wartsila India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Limited (Formerly known as Income Tax-15(3)(1) “Wartsila India Limited) Aayakar Bhavan 21st Floor, Kesar Solitaire, Mumbai Plot No.5, Sector 19 Palm Beach Road, Sanpada Navi Mumbai – 400 705 PAN/GIR No.AAACW0345D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Wartsila Diesel India Income Tax-15(3)(1) Private Limited 21st Floor, Kesar Solitaire, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai Plot No.5, Sector 19 Palm Beach Road, Sanpada Navi Mumbai – 400 705 PAN/G…

Jt.CIT(OSD) 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pudumjee Industries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed in regard to the first question

ITA 1953/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1953/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-2(2)(2) M/S. Pudumjee Industries Ltd. बनाम नाम/ नाम नाम Room No.545, 5Th Floor 60, Jatia Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 023. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0487-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar – Ld. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 143(3)Section 14A

…i), deleted interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) in view of the fact that assessee’s own funds were more than the investments and therefore, no disallowance was required in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014 366 ITR 505). The adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A while computing Book Profits u/s. 115JB was deleted by placing reliance on the decision of Delhi Tribunal (Special Bench) rendered in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [82 Taxmann.com 415]. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative [AR], at the outset, d…

ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai vs. J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6075/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite

Section 10A

…to take care of the investment. In this context, he drew our attention to the Balance Sheet as at 31st March 2009, a copy of which is placed at Page–46 of the paper book. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); and ii) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom.). 12. As regards disallowance of administrative expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii), the learned Authorised Representative submitted, these are old investments, hence, the assessee does not have to incur any administrative expenditure with regard to such investment. 13. The learned…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1956/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri. H.P. Mahajan and Shri Prasad BaptiFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.1956/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Corporation Taxation, ……………. Appellant P.K. Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 PAN No.AAACM3025E v/s Additional CIT RG 2(2) ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Assessee by : Shri. H.P. Mahajan and Shri Prasad Bapti Revenue by : Shri Jayant Kumar Date of Hearing – 15/01/2019 Date of Order - 10/04 /2019 O R D E R PER: SHAMIM YAHYA This appeal by the assessee is directe…

Patan Solar Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5942/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Patan Solar Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit-13(1)(2), Mumbai 602, Western Edge-I, Aayakarbhavan, M.K.Road Vs. Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020 Borivali (West), Mumbai- 400092. Pan No. Aafcp6744A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal & Mr. Tanmaypadhke,Ars Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal & Mr. TanmayPadhke,ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…al, reserves and surplus) stand at Rs.2,58,61,888/- whereas the non-current investments are at Rs.2,04,25,400/-. In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.[2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 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…

Yuvak Ventrures Private Limited (Successors to Aikone Marketing and Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 144/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Yuvak Ventures Pvt. Ltd., (As Successors To Aikone Marketing & Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,) 405/408, B ……………. Appellant Wing, Navbharat Estate Zakaria Bunder Road Sewree, Mumbai – 400 015 Pan No:Aagca6159B V/S

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh. A.Thar &For Respondent: Shri. B.B.Rajendra Prasad &

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ACIT (20! 6) 67 taxmann.com 270 (Ahd. Trib.) Proposition : No disallowance towards interest can he made in cases where the own funds are higher than the tax free investments  CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.)  CIT v. HDFC Bank (366 ITR 505) (Bom )  HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom.)  CIT v. Microlabs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar.)  Mrs. Anahaita Nalin Shah v. ACIT (ITA No. 71 1 5/Mum/20l 3) (Mum.)  Hind Filters Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 1792 & 417/M/20I3) (Mum.)  Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT (ITA No. S63/M/201 3) (Mum.)  Dena Bank v. DCIT (ITA No. 3676 &…

Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1420/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1420/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cir-1(1)(2), Opp. Old Excise Chawky, Vs. Ahmedabad S.M. Road, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR

Section 145ASection 14ASection 194CSection 40

…meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 24.1 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…

Aditya Medisales Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas

ITA 3049/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CITD.R

Section 115JSection 14ASection 43B

…excess of corresponding investment (Rs.12.54 Crores) giving rise to exempt income, there is no warrant to make disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) in view of the decision in Pr.CIT vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.); and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.). Identical view has been expressed in other years of the assessee’s appeals discussed above. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance made under s.8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules. 33. As regards disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO shall re- compute the disallowance with reference to investments which have actually given…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2710/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR

Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…res, as brought out by the Ld. CIT(A), which is sufficient to cover investment of Rs. 8.88 crores and accordingly, in view of settled principle laid down in various judgements, like CIT vs. Hero Cycles, [2010] 323 ITR, 158 (P& H); CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2104 366 ITR 505 (Bom) & [2016] 383 ITR 589 (Bom), no disallowance can be made. 19.1 In so far as what should be the reasonable basis for disallowance prior to the applicability of rule 8D, we find that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 82,41,610/-, which are mostly from mutual funds. For deployment of funds and monitoring of such investments, it would…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2703/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR

Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68