CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Crescent Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Cresent Trading Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Mandhana Manor, 45, Wing-‘C’, 3(3), Mumbai. बिधम/ Mogul Lane, Matunga Road Vs. (West), Mumbai 400 016. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcc6898A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…iture was liable to be made. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay : (i) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) (ii) CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) It was further averred by the Ld. A.R that the lower authorities had erred in failing to appreciate that the disallowance under Sec. 14A cannot exceed the M/s Cresent Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 3(3) – A.Y. 2012-13 5 amount of exempt income. In support of his aforesaid contention the Ld. A.R relied on the order passed by the Tribunal in its…

ACIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhcentral Bank Of India D C I T - 2(1)(2) 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent Ac I T - 2(1)(2) Central Bank Of India Room No. 562, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent

…relates to valuation of securities while shifting from Available for sale to Hold to Maturity. The learned A.R. submits that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 368 ITR 377. On the other hand the learned DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the authorities below. 16. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have noted that almost on identical facts on identical question of law the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd…

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhcentral Bank Of India D C I T - 2(1)(2) 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent Ac I T - 2(1)(2) Central Bank Of India Room No. 562, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent

…relates to valuation of securities while shifting from Available for sale to Hold to Maturity. The learned A.R. submits that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 368 ITR 377. On the other hand the learned DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the authorities below. 16. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have noted that almost on identical facts on identical question of law the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd…

Arjav Diamonds (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal assessee is allowed

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

…. 235,49,56,627/- is available as against the investment of Rs. 27,73,35,924/- in the mutual funds and equities. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that 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.) the presumption is that once the interest free funds are available with the assessee, the investment in equities and mutual funds is made out of the same. The learned Counsel for the assessee further stated that the AO has nowhere proved the nexus that the interest bearing funds have been invested in purchase of equities and mutual funds g…

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…laimed that own funds are more than the investment made by the assessee, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340)(Bom.), CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank Ltd.(2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Ms. Arju Garodia, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the factual matrix needs to be examined at the level of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available…

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…laimed that own funds are more than the investment made by the assessee, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340)(Bom.), CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank Ltd.(2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Ms. Arju Garodia, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the factual matrix needs to be examined at the level of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…laimed that own funds are more than the investment made by the assessee, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340)(Bom.), CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank Ltd.(2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Ms. Arju Garodia, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the factual matrix needs to be examined at the level of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…laimed that own funds are more than the investment made by the assessee, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340)(Bom.), CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank Ltd.(2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Ms. Arju Garodia, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the factual matrix needs to be examined at the level of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available…

Vora Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Vora Financial Services P. Ltd. A C I T - 2(3((1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 274, Perin Nariman, St. Bazar Gate M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1975E Appellant Respondent

…8/-. Accordingly the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.43,66,781/- u/s 14A of the Act. 5. The Ld CIT(A) deleted the interest disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of I T Rules by following decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505), since the own funds available with the assessee was more than the value of investments. With regard to disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to compute the disallowance by considering only those investments which have yielded income, which does not form part of total income. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowa…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainidy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–8(4), Mumbai V/S M/S. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan ……………. Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaacs7934A Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–8(4), Mumbai V/S M/S. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan ……………. Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaacs7934A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–8(4), Mumbai v/s M/s. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan ……………. Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACS7934A Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–8(4), Mumbai v/s M/s. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan ……………. Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACS7934A Revenue by : Shri H.N. Singh Assessee by : Shri Shiv Prakash Date of Hearing…

Bhisma Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…ssee is that the assessee was having more funds than investment, therefore, no disallowance is required in view of the provision Rule 8D(ii) of the Act. Hence the addition is required to be deleted in view of the law settled in CIT Vs.HDFC Bank Limited (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses incurred to earn the exempt income to the tune of Rs.1,36,57,812/- in view of the provision of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Act. The said addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The ple…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainil&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai L&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai

…nst investment in exempt income yielding asset of ` 7 crore. Therefore, he submitted, no disallowance of interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); and ii) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s CIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.). 40. The learned Departmental Representative drawing our attention to certain observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, before the Assessing Officer the assessee had admitted of utilizing borrowed fund for investment purpose. Therefore, assessee’s claim cannot be acce…

DCIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tropical Clothing Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singhd C I T - 8(3)(1) M/S. Tropical Clothing Co. P. Ltd. Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Nirman Kendra, Unit No. 4 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400011 Pan – Aabct6119R Appellant Respondent

…finding that the own funds available with the assessee is in far excess of the value of investment and hence the disallowance of interest expenditure is not called for as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505. With regard to other expenses, even though it is the contention of the assessee that its investments are being managed by portfolio managers and hence only the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income is the portfolio management charges of `3,25,703/-, yet it cannot be said that the assessee did not use its other resources in connection…

DCIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. Pratap U. Purohit, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit 32(3) Vs. Shri Pratap U. Purohit R.No.108, 1St Floor 307, Jalaram Business C-11, Pratakshyakar Bhavan Centre, Ganjawala Lane Bkc, Bandra Near Chamunda Circle Mumbai-400 051 Borivali (W) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Ahcpp6451F Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM DCIT 32(3) Vs. Shri Pratap U. Purohit R.No.108, 1st Floor 307, Jalaram Business C-11, Pratakshyakar Bhavan Centre, Ganjawala Lane BKC, Bandra Near Chamunda Circle Mumbai-400 051 Borivali (W) Mumbai – 400 068 PAN/GIR No. AHCPP6451F Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri Ashish K V Assessee by Shri Sanjay Kapadia Date of Hearing 11/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement 20/06/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 44, Mumbai dated 22/08/2…