How many judgments cite CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.?

1,261 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 8D.

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 367,181 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 14A Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D Section 10(34)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

disallowance of interest expenditure disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 14a book profits revenue expenditure section 115j section 115jb section 32 capital expenditure section 37(1)section 36

Judgments citing CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Herculas Hoists Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2956/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…igure has already been submitted before the AO by virtue of letter dated 21.10.2012 and copy of which lies at page no. 38 to 41 of the paper book. The case of the assessee clearly falls within the ambit of decision in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The investment made to earn the exempt income is liable to be considered from the own funds of assessee. If, the assessee’s own fund is more than the investment. The expenditure is liable to be assessed on reasonable basis. Therefore, we are of the view that to meet the end of justice 2% of the exempt income is sufficient to assess the exp…

M/S Daulat Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2013-14

Section 10(34)Section 114ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…nt to meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal.” ‘ Similarly we also rely on the judgment of the hon'ble Bombay High Curt 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…

DCIT, Cir-6, Kolkata vs. M/S Cesc Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1304/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1304/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 119Section 139Section 194CSection 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…iture- When investments are made from own funds, merely because the assessee had to subsequently borrow the funds for business use, it cannot be said that the borrowed funds have been used for the purposes of investments”. CIT –vs.- HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the finding of fact given by the Tribunal was that the assessee’s own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax-free securities. This CESC Ltd. , AY- 2010-11 factual position was not one that was disputed. Undisputedly, the assessee’s capital, profit reserves,…

Cesc Limited, Kolkata vs. The DCIT RG-6, Kolkata

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

ITA 1187/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

Section 119Section 139Section 194CSection 40Section 40(1)(ia)

ITO 8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Richa India Infra Development P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3218/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3218/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Milind V Sahasrabudhe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…r investment in purchase of mutual funds. Once, nexus is not proved, and the funds in the shape of share capital is more than the investment, the presumption in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom), is in favour of assessee. Respectfully following the Bombay High Court decision and considering the facts of the case, we confirm the order of CIT(A). The appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13-06-2018. AadoSa kI GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk 13.06.2018…

ACIT, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 37/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am] I.T.A. No. 37/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 14A

…iture- When investments are made from own funds, merely because the assessee had to subsequently borrow the funds for business use, it cannot be said that the borrowed funds have been used for the purposes of investments”. CIT –vs.- HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the finding of fact given by the Tribunal was that the assessee’s own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax-free securities. This factual position was not one that was disputed. Undisputedly, the assessee’s capital, profit reserves, surplus and current acco…

Stci Fiance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1048/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

…funds available with the assessee is in far excess of the value of investment and hence no disallowance out of interest 3 STCI Finance Limited expenditure is called for as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). 10. Learned AR further submitted that the assessee has brought forward the investments from last year and accordingly submitted that, during the year under consideration, no transaction relating to purchase and sale of investments have taken place. Accordingly, he submitted that reasonable amount may be disallowed out of expenses. 11. Learned…

Amforge Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 3707/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3707/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Amforge Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Cir 3(1) 1104A, Raheja Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Rd Vs. Nariman Point,Mumbai- Mumbai. Pin: 400020 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca8756A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Vidyadhar ( Dr) Assessee By: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.03.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar ( DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…was having interest free fund to the tune of Rs.33.55 crores as against the investment of Rs.6.93 crores. The detail in this regard lies at page no. 36 of the paper book which is the annual report for the A.Y. 2009- 10. In the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505 Bom.), it is specifically held that if the assessee has own interest free fund more than the investment, therefore, interest is not required to be disallowed. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the no interest is liable to be disallowed in view of the provision Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Act. So far as the claim of disallowance…

Alchemie Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6886/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6886/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बिाम/ Alchemie Financial Services Dcit ,Range-10(3), Ltd. Mumbai 2N D Floor, Udyog Kshetra V. Mulund, Goregoan Link Road, Off Lbs Road Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaca0948C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…elied upon Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited v. CIT reported in (2009) 18 DTR 1 (Bom.)and also decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Limited v. DCIT reported in (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom.) but learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee because assessee could not demonstrate nexus of investments with interest-free funds available with the assessee.. However ,with respect to the indirect expenses incurred by the assessee in relation to earning of an exempt income, the AO had disallowed expenditure to the tune of Rs. 2,…

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S. Arihant Capital Markets Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of

ITA 370/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…incurred in respect of such investment. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited; 313 ITR 340 and another judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd.; 366 ITR 505. The learned counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the following judgments :- A For the proposition that if both funds are available with the assessee that is interest bearing and interest free, then the presumption would arise that investment would be out of interest free funds available with the company, if the same are sufficie…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sicom Investment & Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed and CO of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3679/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: MP Lohia & Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: V Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 8D

…e that there is any nexus between the investment made in giving rise to exempt income and loan taken by assessee or borrowed funds. Hence, respectfully following the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition. 7 CO. 317/Mum/2017 6. As regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) the only plea raised before us that disallowance under 14A of the Act read with section Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules should be restricted to 0.5% of average value of investment by only…

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Express Newspapaers (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3664/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: V Mohan, ARFor Respondent: V Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D

…No. 6780/Mum/2014 dated 22.06.2016, wherein assessee’s own funds were more than the investments of tax free investments and Tribunal has deleted the disallowance following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the presumption is in favour of assessee that has invested the tax free income earned from securities from the interest free funds in case revenue could not prove nexus. As the facts are exactly identical in this year also, respectfully following earlier year’s Tribunal’s decision in, assess…

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. J.M. Financial Products Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3661/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivaramFor Respondent: Abhijit Patankar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…to exempt income. He also relied on the Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case for immediately preceding year, wherein Tribunal has deleted the disallowance by following the Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) by observing in Para 6 to 8, 10 as under:- “6. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. As regards to Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.3940 & 3941/Mum/2015 for the AY 2010-11, we find that in the case of JM Financial Products Ltd. in ITA No. 3941/Mum/2015, the AO has disallowed the interest o…

Tata Power Trading Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 7 (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2724/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Tata Power Trading Deputy Commissioner Of Income Company Limited Tax, Circle-7(3) Room. No. 615, बिधम/ Corporate Centre, „A‟ Block, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai-400020 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400009 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabct9887A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Milin Thokore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…8D(2)(ii) was called for in its hands in respect of investment made in equity shares of PXIL. In support of his aforesaid contention, the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-2, Mumbai Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The ld. A.R further assailed the disallowance of Rs. 1,28,886/- made in the hands of the assessee under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(iii). The ld. A.R submitted that disallowance of Rs. 1,56,689/- made by the A.O under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D, without providing any explanation for not accepting the claim of the assessee that no expense P a g e |…

Asst CIT CC 43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem .P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1334/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 14A

…` 43.98 crores respectively as at the beginning and end of the year. Admittedly, own fund available with the assessee is in far excess of the value of investment. Hence, as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), no disallowance out of interest expenditure is called for. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure made u/r. 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rule. 6. Next issue contested by the assessee relates to transfer pricing adjustment made on i…

Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1640/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…available with the assessee is more than the value of investments and hence no disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules out of interest expenditure is called for, as per decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). The Learned AR further submitted that Special bench of the Tribunal has held in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmnn.com 415, that for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A read with rule 8D, only those investments which yielded exempt income during the year are to be considered. The Learned AR further submi…

Santosh Chandulal Mandlecha, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

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

ITA 1007/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of the Act should not exceed the exempt income which form part of the total income. Considering these facts and relying on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), judgment in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.), I find it is obvious inference that assessee has adequate interest free funds and assessee also earned profits in the current year. All these interest free funds are sufficient enough to take care of the exempt income yielding inv…

Avinash Ramchandra Phadnis, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer

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

ITA 2958/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2958/Pun/2016 िनधा!रण वष! / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mpt income which formed part of the total income of the year under consideration. Considering these facts and relying on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), judgment in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.), I find it is obvious inference that assessee has adequate interest free funds and assessee also earned profits in the current year. All these interest free funds are sufficient enough to take care of the exempt income yielding inve…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sumeet Bawa, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 728/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2009-10] The D.C.I.T Vs. Shri Sumeet Bawa Circle – 3(1) 494, Vill. Sultanpur New Delhi Sultanpur, Ghitorni Delhi Pan : Aaepb 2767 P [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kaushalendra Tiwari, CIT- DR

…ent interest free funds available with it, we do not find any merit in the disallowance. We draw support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utility and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 followed in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505. Considering the facts in totality, we do not find any cause of interference with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 13. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 24.05.2018. [H.S. SIDHU] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24th May, 2018 VL/ 6…

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 737/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.736 & 737/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13) Jcit (Osd), Cir-4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 10, Camac Street, Industry House, 15Th Floor, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 069. 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 7788 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Chaturvedi, AR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…diture- When investments are made from own funds, merely because the assessee had to subsequently borrow the funds for business use, it cannot be said that the borrowed funds have been used for the purposes of investments". CIT -vs.- HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the finding of fact given by the Tribunal was that the assessee's own funds and other non- interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax-free securities. This factual position was not one that was disputed. Undisputedly, the assessee's capital, profit reserves, surplus and current acc…