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.

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

ITA 2702/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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…

Crystaline Exports Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 3(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1377/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Crystaline Exports Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd. C/O. Karnavat & Co. 2A Vs. 3(1)(3), Room No. 666, Kitab Mahal, 1St Floor, 192 6Th Floor, Aayakar Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai- Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400001 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacc1527F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Hirawat, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Hirawat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…h exempt income is received. In this regard reliance is placed by him on the decision in Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra). M/s Crystaline Exports 3 Further, relying on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Utilities Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom), CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom), the Ld. counsel submits that in a case wherein the own fund is more than the investment, the disallowance of interest u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D is unwarranted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that as the assessee has itself revised the working of disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.1,36,864/-, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the order of t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Pune Cantonment Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 435/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj DandgavelFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Haldar
Section 145Section 148Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43D

…the taxable income. He accordingly denied the claim of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd reported in (2014) 368 ITR 377 and the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Limited Vs. ACIT reported in 356 ITR 546 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 8. Before us, Ld.D.R. supported the order of AO. Ld.A.R. on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before AO…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Garware Polyster Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5757/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhandcit-9(3)(2) M/S Garware Polyster Ltd. 418, 4Th Floor, Garware House, Western Express Aayakar Bhavan, Highway, Vile Parle(East), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacg0571D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Apurv Gandhi (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Apurv Gandhi (AR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…s 14A of the Act when own funds of the assessee are sufficient to cover the value of investments for this purpose reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncement: 1. CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Ltd [313 ITR 340 (80m)] 2. CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505 (Bom)] 3. HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT [383 ITR 529 (Bom)] 20. For the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act only those investments are to be considered form which exempt income has been received during the year for this purpose reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncement: 1. ACIT Vs. Vireet investment [165 ITD 25 (Del) (SB)] 2. ACB India…

M/S. Rextone Finance Ltd. (Now Known As M/S. Rextone Digital Ltd.), Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T - 13(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 826/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Alok Saksena, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D

…the assessee in view of the above stated that these needs examination at the level of AO and in case these facts are correct, the AO will delete the disallowance 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). We are in agreement with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the assessee and when these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he fairly agreed that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the AO for verification of facts. In case this share capital and share reserve i.e. assessee’s own fund are m…

Vidyut Metallics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 38(New Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5243/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5243/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5244/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Vidyut Metallics Pvt.Ltd. Acit-Cc 38 बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Malhotra House [New Central Circle-6(3) 19Th Floor, Air India Building Opp. Gpo, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-3305-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha and Shri Dr. Prayag Jha- Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gobgtra - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…1 ITA No.5243-44/Mum/2017 M/s. Vidyut Metallics Private Limited Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एफ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी सी. एन. "साद,"ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5243/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5244/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Vidyut Metallics Pvt.Ltd. ACIT-CC 38 बनाम/ 4th Floor, Malhotra House [New Central Circle-6(3)…

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Kewal Kiran Enterparises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 3905/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dcit-24(3), M/S Kewal Kiran Enterprises, Room No. 701, C-11, B-101/107, Synthofine Estate, 7Th Floor, B.K.C. Bandra (E)), Opp. Virwani Ind. Estate, Mumbai 400051 Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaafk2525L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ayushi Modani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rapre (DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40A(2)(b)

…had partner capital amounting to Rs. 10,69,24,341/- whereas the total investment was Rs. 1,50,81,843/-. The Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC bank Ltd versus DCIT (383 ITR 529) Bom., CIT versus HDFC bank (366 ITR 505) Bom, CIT vs. Reliance utilities and power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) Bom and other cases to substantiate his contention. The learned counsel further pointed out that since the AO had applied rule 8D(2)(iii) without recording his dissatisfaction regarding the assessee’s claim, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly restricted the disallowance under section 14A read…

Living Media India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 648/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarliving Media India Ltd. Vs Dcit 9K- Block, Connaught Circle – 15 (2) Circus New Delhi New Delhi - 110005 Pan No.Aaacl0087H

…a situation where the own funds are more than the investment in exempt assets, no disallowance can be made out of the interest expenditure. This has been the view of the Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). It has most recently been followed by the Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of T&T Motors LTD. (154 ITD 306). Accordingly in my view no disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted. 8.2.2 Coming to the issue of disallowance of administrative expenses, the AR has pointed out that, despite offering a sum of Rs…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Living Media India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1034/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarliving Media India Ltd. Vs Dcit 9K- Block, Connaught Circle – 15 (2) Circus New Delhi New Delhi - 110005 Pan No.Aaacl0087H

…a situation where the own funds are more than the investment in exempt assets, no disallowance can be made out of the interest expenditure. This has been the view of the Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). It has most recently been followed by the Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of T&T Motors LTD. (154 ITD 306). Accordingly in my view no disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted. 8.2.2 Coming to the issue of disallowance of administrative expenses, the AR has pointed out that, despite offering a sum of Rs…

Kalra Overseas and Precision Engineering Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 14(2), Pune

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

ITA 1328/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gopal R. AswaniFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…crores which were more than the investments and in such a situation, it is to be presumed that investments are out of interest free funds. Ld.A.R. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in (2014) 366 ITR 505 wherein it was held that when the own funds are more than the investments then no disallowance of interest u/s 14A of the Act is called for. Relying on the aforesaid decision, he submitted that no disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T. Rules is called for in the present case. He further submitted that assessee has earned exempt…

Rushil Industries Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 3285/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3285/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 M/S Rushil Industries Ltd., The A.C.I.T, D-202, Sarthik Complex, Vs. Circle-1, Bhavnagar. Atabhai Chowk, Bhavnagar.

Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…eet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 25.1 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…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amjay Medimza (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 289/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 The D.C.I.T, M/S Amjay Medimax(India) Pvt. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Ltd. Ahmedabad 4Th Floor, Max House, Opp. Karnavati Hospital, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006 Pan : Aabca8241R

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

…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 disallowan…

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1075/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1075-1076/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T. Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Circle-2(1)(1), G-5,Pariseema Complex, Vs. Ahmedabad-380015 Nr. Swagat Cross Roads, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacg6992L

For Respondent: Shri VinodTanwani, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…eet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 31.1 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'scapCIT (A)l, 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 disallow…

DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ai Champdany Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.172/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…more than the investment made by the assessee company, therefore the general presumption is that the assessee has made investment out of the interest free funds, hence relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT 366 ITR 505, no disallowance should be made u/s 14A on account of interest paid on borrowings. Since the assessee has own funds which exceed the investment made in shares and securities. 13. So far the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, we note that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has directed the Assessing…

The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ahmedabad Strips Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3454/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3454/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T, Ahmedabad Strips Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), 604, Sarap Complex, 6Th Floor, Vs. Ahmedabad Navjivan Press Road, B/H. Gujarat Vidhyapith, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8222A

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Shah, A.R
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…12 the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal”. 28.1 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…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Limited., Kolkata

ITA 192/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ance on account of interest can be made. 2.3.2 Attention in this regard is invited to the following judgments:  The Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340]  The Bombay High Court in case of CITVs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505]  The Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs, Torrent Power Ltd, [363 ITR 474]  ITAT (Kolkata) in case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (order enclosed) 2.3.3 Following the aforesaid decisions the ITAT(Kolkata) in assessee's own case (for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11) at para 143 held that " We are of the view the submission made with regard to availabil…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Limited., Kolkata

ITA 191/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ance on account of interest can be made. 2.3.2 Attention in this regard is invited to the following judgments:  The Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340]  The Bombay High Court in case of CITVs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505]  The Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs, Torrent Power Ltd, [363 ITR 474]  ITAT (Kolkata) in case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (order enclosed) 2.3.3 Following the aforesaid decisions the ITAT(Kolkata) in assessee's own case (for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11) at para 143 held that " We are of the view the submission made with regard to availabil…

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cental Circle - 4(4), Kolkata

ITA 139/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ance on account of interest can be made. 2.3.2 Attention in this regard is invited to the following judgments:  The Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340]  The Bombay High Court in case of CITVs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505]  The Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs, Torrent Power Ltd, [363 ITR 474]  ITAT (Kolkata) in case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (order enclosed) 2.3.3 Following the aforesaid decisions the ITAT(Kolkata) in assessee's own case (for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11) at para 143 held that " We are of the view the submission made with regard to availabil…

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cental Circle - 4(4), Kolkata

ITA 138/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ance on account of interest can be made. 2.3.2 Attention in this regard is invited to the following judgments:  The Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340]  The Bombay High Court in case of CITVs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505]  The Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs, Torrent Power Ltd, [363 ITR 474]  ITAT (Kolkata) in case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (order enclosed) 2.3.3 Following the aforesaid decisions the ITAT(Kolkata) in assessee's own case (for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11) at para 143 held that " We are of the view the submission made with regard to availabil…

Dhumal Industries, Nashik vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80I

…of assessee (Partners Capital) are to the tune of Rs.18,98,07,414.42/- as against Investments of Rs.9,47,69,105.84/-. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported as 366 ITR 505 no disallowance u/s. 14A(2) is called for. The ld. AR further contended that for making disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D it is mandatory to record satisfaction. In this case disallowance u/s. 14A has been made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, before making disallowance, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not recorded…