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 367,282 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.

Ranadey Micronutrients Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 638/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण पुणे "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 638/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ranadey Micronutrients Pvt. Ltd. “Shrikrishna” Krishnakeval Town Ship, 1-A, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune-411 048 PAN : AAACR8134R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Appellant by : Shri Arvind V. Sonde Respondent by : Shri Sudhendu Das सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 19.09.2018 घो…

DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Manaksia Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 980/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata....…..……………...…….………...Appellant M/S. Manaksia Limited….…………........................…………………………………...…….………........Respondent Bikaneer Building 8/1, Lalbazar Street Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aaach 6886 J] Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 28Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 28/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12, On The Following Grounds:- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Upward Adjustment Of Rs.6,97,64,000/- Towards Arm’S Length Interest On Loan Given To Associated Enterprise. 2. Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting Fee Of Rs.2,93,66,000/- Towards Providing Corporate Guarantee On Loans Availed By Foreign Associated Enterprise. 3. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D. 4. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting A Sum Of Rs.9,69,178/- Towards Accrued Interest On Loan. 5. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete, Amend Or Modify Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Appellate Proceedings.”

Section 14ASection 250Section 92B

…i) and came to a factual conclusion that the assessee has adequate interest free funds totalling to Rs.49,367.68 Lakhs to justify the investment of Rs.40.02 Lakhs. He applied the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505] and other decisions and held that no disallowance can be made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(ii). 6.1. We find no infirmity in this finding of the ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same. Ground No. 3 of the revenue is dismissed. 7. Ground No. 4, is against the action of the Assessing Officer in adding the sum of Rs.9,69,178/-, towards accrued interest. 7 Assessme…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Investments Advisors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2638/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri DG Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, AR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…pital and ITA Nos. 2635-2638/Mum/2017 reserve are more than the investment in giving tax free income. Once this is the position, the issue is squarely covered by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Respectfully following the Bombay High Court decision and considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same. 12. As regards to the disallowance of administrative expense under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, the assessee has filed the details of investme…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Capital Markets Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2637/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri DG Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, AR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…pital and ITA Nos. 2635-2638/Mum/2017 reserve are more than the investment in giving tax free income. Once this is the position, the issue is squarely covered by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Respectfully following the Bombay High Court decision and considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same. 12. As regards to the disallowance of administrative expense under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, the assessee has filed the details of investme…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ecap Equities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2636/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri DG Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, AR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…pital and ITA Nos. 2635-2638/Mum/2017 reserve are more than the investment in giving tax free income. Once this is the position, the issue is squarely covered by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Respectfully following the Bombay High Court decision and considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same. 12. As regards to the disallowance of administrative expense under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, the assessee has filed the details of investme…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Investments Advisors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2635/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri DG Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, AR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…pital and ITA Nos. 2635-2638/Mum/2017 reserve are more than the investment in giving tax free income. Once this is the position, the issue is squarely covered by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Respectfully following the Bombay High Court decision and considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same. 12. As regards to the disallowance of administrative expense under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, the assessee has filed the details of investme…

Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5842/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kotak Mahindra The Addl. Commissioner Of Investments Ltd. 27 Bkc, C- Vs. Income Tax Range 3(2) 27 G Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- Complex Bandra(E), 400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaach1075K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farrokh Irani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Farrokh Irani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…l of the balance sheet as at 31.03.2010 clearly indicates that the appellant’s own funds are in excess of tax-free income-yielding investments. In HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) 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 assessee's own funds in…

Kewal Kiran Clothing Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1852/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm& Hon’Ble Sh.N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1852/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM& HON’BLE SH.N. K. PRADHAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1852/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) DCIT 12(3)(1), M/s.Kewal Kiran Clothing R. no. 147B/223/262, Ltd. बिधम/ AayakarBhavan, Kewal Kiran Estate, 460/7 J. Vs. Marine Line, Mumbai- B. Patel Rd, Near Western Express Highway, Goregaon 400 020 (east) Mumbai – 400 063 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACK3402H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Ronak G. Doshi, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Manoj Kumar…

Shantivijay Jewels Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 4393/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 131Section 132

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM) I.T.A. No. 4393/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 4568/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 4620/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 4671/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/s. Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. ITO 11(2)(2) Vs. G-37, Gems & Jewellery Aayakar Bhavan Complex-III, SEEPZ, Andheri M.K. Road East, Mumbai-400 096. Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 6139/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 6150/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 6…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. J. J. Exporters Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1372/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 92C

…umption is that the investments were made out of share capital and reserve and surplus. Therefore, relying on the judgment of Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT vs. HDFC Pvt. Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom), we delete the addition under Rule 8D (2) (ii). As regards the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance in line of the judgment of jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of REI Agro India reported in (2013) 144 ITD 141 (Kol) and therefore, Assessing Officer…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. J. J. Exporters Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1371/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 92C

…umption is that the investments were made out of share capital and reserve and surplus. Therefore, relying on the judgment of Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT vs. HDFC Pvt. Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom), we delete the addition under Rule 8D (2) (ii). As regards the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance in line of the judgment of jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of REI Agro India reported in (2013) 144 ITD 141 (Kol) and therefore, Assessing Officer…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Value Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5763/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No.4417/Mum/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14A

…ion to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is in consonance with the ratio of decision laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Ltd (supra) and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. The specific dispute between the parties is with regard to disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. As could be seen from the material on record, in course of assessment proceeding…

DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai vs. Value Indusries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1856/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No.4417/Mum/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14A

…ion to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is in consonance with the ratio of decision laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Ltd (supra) and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. The specific dispute between the parties is with regard to disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. As could be seen from the material on record, in course of assessment proceeding…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Value Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4417/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No.4417/Mum/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14A

…ion to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is in consonance with the ratio of decision laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Ltd (supra) and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. The specific dispute between the parties is with regard to disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. As could be seen from the material on record, in course of assessment proceeding…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jetair Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6884/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Asima Neb, Sr. DR

…tax Appellate Tri- bunal in all the three cases and do not find any ground to interfere with those findings”. 15. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 followed in HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505. 16. Considering the facts in totality, in the light of decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi [supra], we decline to interfere. This common ground in all the three appeals is dismissed. 17. In ITA No. 6884/DEL/2015, another grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,82,945/-…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jetair (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2713/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Asima Neb, Sr. DR

…tax Appellate Tri- bunal in all the three cases and do not find any ground to interfere with those findings”. 15. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 followed in HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505. 16. Considering the facts in totality, in the light of decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi [supra], we decline to interfere. This common ground in all the three appeals is dismissed. 17. In ITA No. 6884/DEL/2015, another grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,82,945/-…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jetair (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2712/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Asima Neb, Sr. DR

…tax Appellate Tri- bunal in all the three cases and do not find any ground to interfere with those findings”. 15. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 followed in HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505. 16. Considering the facts in totality, in the light of decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi [supra], we decline to interfere. This common ground in all the three appeals is dismissed. 17. In ITA No. 6884/DEL/2015, another grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,82,945/-…

Indian Seamless Enterprises Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1641/PUN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.I. PatwaFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandrakar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…are much more than the investments made. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported as 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Limited Vs. DCIT, reported as 366 ITR 505. 5.1 The ld. AR further submitted that in so far as disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, the Assessing Officer while making disallowance A.Ys.2009-10 to 2012-13 has not reduced the amount of suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the disallowance already made by the assessee should be reduced from the d…

Indian Seamless Enterprises Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1640/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P.I. PatwaFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandrakar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…are much more than the investments made. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported as 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Limited Vs. DCIT, reported as 366 ITR 505. 5.1 The ld. AR further submitted that in so far as disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, the Assessing Officer while making disallowance A.Ys.2009-10 to 2012-13 has not reduced the amount of suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the disallowance already made by the assessee should be reduced from the d…

Indian Seamless Enterprises Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1639/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P.I. PatwaFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandrakar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…are much more than the investments made. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported as 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Limited Vs. DCIT, reported as 366 ITR 505. 5.1 The ld. AR further submitted that in so far as disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, the Assessing Officer while making disallowance A.Ys.2009-10 to 2012-13 has not reduced the amount of suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the disallowance already made by the assessee should be reduced from the d…