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 367,302 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, Circle-8(2), Kolkata vs. Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2237/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -Vs- Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A T Varkey, JM, & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -vs- Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. [PAN: AABCT 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 96/Kol/2016 (Arising out of I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata [PAN: AABCT 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. C…

M/S Crescent Foundry Co Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T Range - 3, Kolkata

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

ITA 1267/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1267/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd................................…………………………......................Appellant ‘Lords’, Suit No. 406, 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aabcc 0101 C] Jcit, Range – 3, Kolkata...................……………………………………………………….....Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Pawan Kedia, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, Sr(Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 01, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 12, Kolkata Dated 24.01.2017 & The Grounds Raised Therein Read As Under: “1. For That In View Of The Facts & Circumstances, The Cit(A) – 12, Kolkata Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of A Sum Of Rs. 5,57,576/- U/S 14A Disregarding The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Itat – Kolkata In Assessee’S Own Case For A.Y. 2006-07, Which Was Duly Brought To His Notice. 2. For That In View Of Facts & Circumstances, The Cit(A) – 12, Kolkata Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 4,389/- On Account Of Alleged Difference Of Rs. 4,389/- In Purchase Amount Of Rs. 19,17,45,756/- From M/S. Mmu Metaliks Udyog (P) Ltd. In So Far As The Purchase As Shown By The Appellant Was Lower By That Amount Than Sales Reported By The Party.”

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (B), KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President & Shri S.S. Godara, JM] I.T.A. No. 1267/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd................................…………………………......................Appellant ‘Lords’, Suit No. 406, 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata – 700 001. [PAN: AABCC 0101 C] JCIT, Range – 3, Kolkata...................……………………………………………………….....Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances by: Shri Pawan Kedia, AR appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT, Sr(DR) appearing on b…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/A. Khaitan India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 461/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 461/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Khaitan India Ltd. [Pan: Aabck 2326 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…323 (Mum ITAT); (e) Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 Taxman.com 117(Kol); (t) CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom); (g) CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (Punj & Haryana); (h) CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom). (ii) Without prejudice to the submission made in (i) above, the assessee submits that the computation of the allegedly disallowable amount by applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) by taking into account the average value of Investments at RS.16,51,67,043 instead of the correct figure of Rs.16,49,90,444, should be held to be wrong and the correct amount…

M/S Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

ITA 238/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 250

…Year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 238/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. These principles were laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income vs Rasoi Limited, G.A no. 633 of 2016 ITAT No.109 of 2016, order dt. 15th February, 2017, took the same view. 16.1. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss Ground No. 5 of the revenue’s appeal for the Assessment Year 20…

DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2086/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 250

…Year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 238/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. These principles were laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income vs Rasoi Limited, G.A no. 633 of 2016 ITAT No.109 of 2016, order dt. 15th February, 2017, took the same view. 16.1. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss Ground No. 5 of the revenue’s appeal for the Assessment Year 20…

M/S. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range-10, Kolkata

ITA 1880/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 250

…Year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 238/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. These principles were laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income vs Rasoi Limited, G.A no. 633 of 2016 ITAT No.109 of 2016, order dt. 15th February, 2017, took the same view. 16.1. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss Ground No. 5 of the revenue’s appeal for the Assessment Year 20…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 271/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 250

…Year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 238/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. These principles were laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income vs Rasoi Limited, G.A no. 633 of 2016 ITAT No.109 of 2016, order dt. 15th February, 2017, took the same view. 16.1. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss Ground No. 5 of the revenue’s appeal for the Assessment Year 20…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. D.D. Cotton P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit-3(1)(1), M/S D.D. Cotton Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Bhavan, 903, Tulsiyani Chamber, Mumbai - 400020 212 Backway Reclamation Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacd4819K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 258/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2922/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S D.D. Cotton Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-3(1)(1), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Associates Room No. 601, Aayakar Bhavan, Llp, Chartered Accountants, Mumbai - 400020 12 Engineering Building, Vs. 265 Princes Street, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacd4819K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri E. Sridhar (Cit Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.L. Jain (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri E. Sridhar (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 14ASection 43Section 73

…Bench of the Tribunal has set aside the identical ground of appeal to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The contention of assessee before the Tribunal was that in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505 and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. CIT 383 ITR 529, no disallowance under rule 8D(2) (ii), is required to be made where the own funds of the assessee are more than the investments made during the relevant year. In respect of disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii), the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ABC India Ltd. v…

Klt Automotive and Tubular Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3)(1)Erstwhile, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3958/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

…ial Bench) (ITA No. 502/Del/2012 dated 16.6.2017. We further notice that the own funds available with the assessee is more than the value of investments and we notice that the decision rendered by jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505) has not been applied by the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to recompute disallowance in the light of discussions made supra. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed. Order has been…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Infrastructure Finance Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3636/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bled.C.I.T Circle – 14(2)(1) V. M/S. L&T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, 3B Laxmi Towers, “G" Block, Plot No. C-25, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcl 2283 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri S.C. Tiwari

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari
Section 14ASection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D.C.I.T Circle – 14(2)(1) v. M/s. L&T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd Room No. 432, 4th Floor, 3B Laxmi Towers, “G" Block, Plot No. C-25, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AABCL 2283 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri S.C. Tiwari Date of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue…

Bharat Nagori, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1309/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…al interest free funds available as per Balance Sheet were 11.62 Crore and tax free investments aggregating to Rs.7.78 Crore and plea of the assessee was that no disallowance is called for in view of the ratio laid down in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 366 ITR 505( Bom.). Applying the said principle, no disallowance is to be made under section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Coming to the next issue raised vide ground of appeal No.2, wherein disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- was made under section 57(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer vide Para 5…

Manilal Malashibhal Gada, Pune vs. Assistant Eputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 192/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 14ASection 234ASection 57

…f Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall not only examine the applicability of cited decisions in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported as 313 ITR 340 and in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported as 366 ITR 505 but also the Assessing Officer needs to be aware of the fact of restricting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income included in the total income of assessee. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, 8 A.Y.2010-11 ground…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…ction 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT : 394 ITR 449 (SC) • • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT: 366 ITR 505 (Bom) HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT: 383 ITR 529 (Bom) • • CIT v. K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd: ITA No. 1260 of 2009 (Bom.) • Bright enterprises Pvt Ltd. v. CIT: 381 ITR 107 (P&H) • CIT v. Max India Ltd: 388 ITR 81 (P&H) 60 • Gurdas Garg v. CIT: ITA No.413 of 2014 (P&H) • CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. : 383 ITR 490 (Kar.) • PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. : T…

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 3369/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 17Section 234B

…ver up investments in shares, which yielded exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance towards interest u/r 8D(2)(ii). The ITAT, while arriving at the conclusion has followed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 (Bom) where it was categorically held that when there is mixed funds including own funds as well as borrowed funds, a general presumption is drawn in favour of the assessee that investments in shares and securities are made out of interest free funds. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO was erred in disallowing interest expenditu…

Bapa Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1490/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Bapa Real Estate Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 156, Maker Chamber Vi Income Tax, Central Circle-38 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcb-4559-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Reepal G. Tralshawala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Singh, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA No.1490Mum/2015 Bapa Real Estate Pvt.Ltd. Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Bapa Real Estate Private Limited Assistant Commissioner of बनाम/ 156, Maker Chamber VI Income Tax, Central Circle-38 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rare Enterprises, Mumbai

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

ITA 5208/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. S. PadmajaFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari
Section 14Section 14ASection 2

…he facts correctly. (b) Secondly, the AO has taken the view that the borrowed funds should be considered as used for making investments, which is M/s. Rare Enterprises against the principles laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505). (c) Thirdly, the AO has expressed the view that making of investments and earning of exempt income requires efforts. This is contrary to the following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (supra):- “40….. It is to be kept in mind that in those cases where shares are held as stock in trade as business p…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rare Enterprises, Mumbai

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

ITA 5207/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. S. PadmajaFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari
Section 14Section 14ASection 2

…he facts correctly. (b) Secondly, the AO has taken the view that the borrowed funds should be considered as used for making investments, which is M/s. Rare Enterprises against the principles laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505). (c) Thirdly, the AO has expressed the view that making of investments and earning of exempt income requires efforts. This is contrary to the following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (supra):- “40….. It is to be kept in mind that in those cases where shares are held as stock in trade as business p…

Kishor Ramchandra Nirmal, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2508/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 14A

…y assessee. This fact has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Despite that, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported as 366 ITR 505 has held that where own interest free funds are more than the investments, it is presumed that investments are made out of own interest free funds available with the assessee. The ld. AR pointed that the assessee has taken term loan for his transport business. The loan has been utilized for the purpose, it was taken. Borrowed funds have not bee…

Arvind Jaganath Nirmal, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2507/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 14A

…y assessee. This fact has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Despite that, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported as 366 ITR 505 has held that where own interest free funds are more than the investments, it is presumed that investments are made out of own interest free funds available with the assessee. The ld. AR pointed that the assessee has taken term loan for his transport business. The loan has been utilized for the purpose, it was taken. Borrowed funds have not bee…

Sarangdhar Ramchandra Nirmal, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2506/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 14A

…y assessee. This fact has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Despite that, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported as 366 ITR 505 has held that where own interest free funds are more than the investments, it is presumed that investments are made out of own interest free funds available with the assessee. The ld. AR pointed that the assessee has taken term loan for his transport business. The loan has been utilized for the purpose, it was taken. Borrowed funds have not bee…