CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…mpanies and the same have been used for investing purpose. This is evident from the balance sheet of the appellant company as at March 31, 2008. 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…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Mhi Boilers P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.712/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax L & T Mhi Boilers Private Limited 3Rd Floor, L & T House, N.M.Marg, Circle-2(2)(1) बनाम/ Room No.545, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Ballard Estate, Fort M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 098 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcl-2635-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : R.P.Meena, Ld.Cit Dr Assessee By : Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

…Capital of Rs.50 Crores was much more than the investments of Rs.23.02 Crores and therefore, no disallowance was called for in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] & CIT Vs. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505]. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri R.P.Meena, submitted that their mere participation in the bidding process would not entitle the assessee to claim deduction of expenditure since manufacturing facility was not ready for production during impugned AY. The same has been contro…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

…o the investments made as can be seen from the audited financial statements and accordingly, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) (Bom.), CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom) and CIT v. Micro labs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar). Finally, the Ld. counsel submits that the AO has to examine the computation made by the assessee and only if, on an objective satisfaction recorded by the AO with regard to the correctness of the workings, the AO can proceed to apply prov…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

…o the investments made as can be seen from the audited financial statements and accordingly, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) (Bom.), CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom) and CIT v. Micro labs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar). Finally, the Ld. counsel submits that the AO has to examine the computation made by the assessee and only if, on an objective satisfaction recorded by the AO with regard to the correctness of the workings, the AO can proceed to apply prov…

Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Construction P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

…8D (2)(ii) and Rs.18,393/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii)]. 6.2. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the reserves and surplus available with the assessee were far in excess of investment made in group entities. By following, the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom), the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.18,829/- made by the AO. 6.3. Before us, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the AO, whereas the ld. counsel of the assessee supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6.4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the available material on record. We agree with the ld. CIT(A) that the sh…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhbank Of India A C I T - 2(1) C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Vs. M.K Road Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent D C I T - 2(1) Bank Of India Room No. 561, 5Th Floor C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Vs. 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Mumbai 400020 Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2018 O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, Am These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Mumbai Dated 27.11.2012 For A.Y. 2005-06 In The Matter Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

…ve carefully gone through the orders of the Authorities below and find that the issue is covered by the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 13.07.2016 and also by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505. Respectfully following the same we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) for deleting the addition made on account of diminution of value of investment. 34. Ground No. 10 relates to deleting disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. 35. We find that very same issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s ow…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai

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

…hich yielded exempt income. Therefore, no disallowance could be made towards interest expenditure when its own funds are more than the amount of investments. In this regard, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and also CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 19. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also considered case laws relied upon by the assessee. The issue of disallowance of interest u/s 14A when mixed funds are more than the…

Finquest Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Finquest Securities Pvt. Ltd., 602, 6Th Floor,Boston House Suren Road, Andheri (E) ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400 093 Pan No. Aabcb7028F V/S Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (2)(1)(2), 575, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ……………. Respondent M.K.Road, New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 020

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Finquest Securities Pvt. Ltd., 602, 6th Floor,Boston House Suren Road, Andheri (E) ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400 093 PAN no. AABCB7028F v/s Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (2)(1)(2), 575, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ……………. Respondent M.K.Road, New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 020 Assessee by : S/Shri V.G.Ginde & Kumar Kale Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra Date of Hearing – 06/08/2018 Date of Order – 23.08.2018 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. This is an appea…

Kewal Kiran Clothing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addt CIT RG 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Kewal Kiran Clothing Ltd., V. Addt.Cit, Range- 9(2) Kewal Kiran Estate, 460/7, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, I.B. Patel Road., Near Western Mumbai-400 020 Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063

…₹.32.90 Crores to ₹.26.84 Crores the presumption is that the investments are made from out of own funds and not from borrowed funds. Therefore, he submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505] and CIT v. Reliance 3 M/s. Kewal Kiran Clothing Ltd., Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is required to be made. 5. Coming to Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), it is the only submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that only those investments which yielded dividend income should be considered f…

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Varun Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalasstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–5(3)(2), Mumbai V/S M/S. Varun Shipping Co. Ltd. Laxmi Building, 6, Shoorji Vallabhdas ……………. Respondent Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacv1658C

…with the assessee is far in excess of the investments made. That being the case, applying the ratio of the Hon'ble 5 M/s. Varun Shipping Co. Ltd. Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505, disallowance of interest expenses under rule 8D(2)(ii) cannot be made. As regards disallowance of administrative expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to restrict such disallowance to the exempt income earned by the assessee in the relevant previous year. We find the…

Shivalik Ventures P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD 1) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit (Osd – 1), Plot No. 756, Central Range – 7, Staney Fernandes Wadi, Aayakar Bhavan, D.S. Babrekar Marg, Dadar (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 028 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aalcs 7683 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kishanadwala Department By : Shri Vidisha Kalra

…isallowance is concerned submitted that the assessee has own funds more than the investments and one to one nexus was also shown to the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC [366 ITR 505] submitted that no interest disallowance is required to be made. He also further submitted that net interest income is positive and therefore in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No. 1512 of 2014 dated 28.02.2017 no part of the interest is liable to be disall…

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…us year should be considered for computing disallowance. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– 28 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. i) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.); iv) ACB India Ltd. v/s ACIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del.); v) ACIT v/s Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 83 ITR 103; vi) M/s. Toshvin Analytical Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.3089/ Mum./2013 (Mum.); vii) Sylvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.8581/ Mum./2011, (Mum.); and viii) S. Krishn…

Radhika D. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result apples file by the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…st bearing borrowed funds. Accordingly, he submitted that no interest should be Ms. Radhika D. Mehta disallowed since own funds have been used for the purpose of making investment. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions: • HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom) • Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (31 3 ITR 340) (Bom) • M/s. Uma Polymers Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 3329/Mum/2015) dated 9th February 2017 (Mum) 7. On the other hand, the learned D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and contended that the AO as precisely applied Rule 8D, which is applicable for assessment years under consideration…