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.

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 505)

Zee Media Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Addll.CIT -RG.7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2695/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 133(6)Section 154

…re of the considered view that this matter has to go back to the Assessing Officer for verification of accounts and for decision, keeping in view the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505] and Special Bench decision in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] thus, we restore this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and to decide the issue keeping in view the decisions and after verification of the accounts of the assessee. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunit…

ACIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. (Formerly Known As Zee News Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2166/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 133(6)Section 154

…re of the considered view that this matter has to go back to the Assessing Officer for verification of accounts and for decision, keeping in view the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505] and Special Bench decision in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] thus, we restore this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and to decide the issue keeping in view the decisions and after verification of the accounts of the assessee. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunit…

Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, RG-10, Kolkata

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

ITA 239/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 239/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Eureka Forbes Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Range-10, Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 5767 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…ents and hence no disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules could be made in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilites and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd (2015) 376 ITR 553 (Guj). Hence respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we hold that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules is to be made in the instant case.We are aware o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shraddha Constructions & Power Generation Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 460/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.459 & 460/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 153A

…of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable as the said decision has the backing of the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 and CIT Vs. HDFC Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505. Thus, the decision given by the CIT(A) stands confirmed. Thus, Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” 12. Considering the above settled nature of the issues in the assessee’s own case, we dismiss the ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue. 13. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2010-11 14. Both the Co…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shraddha Constructions & Power Generation Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 459/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.459 & 460/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 153A

…of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable as the said decision has the backing of the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 and CIT Vs. HDFC Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505. Thus, the decision given by the CIT(A) stands confirmed. Thus, Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” 12. Considering the above settled nature of the issues in the assessee’s own case, we dismiss the ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue. 13. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2010-11 14. Both the Co…

A.C.I.T Cir - 46, Kolkata vs. The Bantra Co - Operative Bank Ltd, Howrah

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

ITA 2153/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1936 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2153 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. -Vs- The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 28

…out by the RBI. He further stated that the assessee had effectively written off the portion of investments to the tune of Rs 5,22,250/- in its books. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom). We find that the assessee had furnished only the journal entry stated to be suggested by the RBI and had promised to submit the Inspection Report after the hearing. We find that the said RBI Inspection Report was not furnished to us to understand the real intent behind RBI suggesting the provision to be made in the sum of Rs 5,22,250/-. In…

The Bantra Co - Operative Bank Ltd, Howrah vs. I.T.O WD - 46(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1936/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1936 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2153 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. -Vs- The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 28

…out by the RBI. He further stated that the assessee had effectively written off the portion of investments to the tune of Rs 5,22,250/- in its books. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom). We find that the assessee had furnished only the journal entry stated to be suggested by the RBI and had promised to submit the Inspection Report after the hearing. We find that the said RBI Inspection Report was not furnished to us to understand the real intent behind RBI suggesting the provision to be made in the sum of Rs 5,22,250/-. In…

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 3673/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3673/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Amforge Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Cir 3(1) 1104A, Raheja Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Rd Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai. Mumbai. Pin: 400020 Pin:400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amnps2327M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav ( Dr) Assessee By: B.V. Jhaveri (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.03.2018 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. 2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav ( DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 14A

…of the assessee was from his own funds, therefore, there can be no disallowance on account of the interest expenditure in view of the provision u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. In this regard we also find support of the law settled in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505, Bom).. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we delete the interest disallowance. In respect to the disallowance of Rs 2,33,448 u/r 8D(2)(ii)(0.5% of the average investment) is concerned, the assessee relied upon the order passed by the ITAT in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year of 2007-08. The finding of the Hon’ble Tribunal is her…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6257/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. DCIT-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACL0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 DCIT-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5th floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 PAN No. AAACL0140P Appellant Respondent Asse…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jath Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2714/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2713 & 2714/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar ChawareFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Sanmane

Section 143(3)

…iness expenditure. Consequently, the appeal of assessee was allowed. Further, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay ITA Nos.2713 & 2714/PUN/2016 4 Jath Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom), wherein it was held that amortization of premium paid on Government securities Held to Maturity was allowed. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in not only allowing the claim of assessee but also accepting the plea of assessee that the investments were in the nature of HTM category, wherein the assessee had made change of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jath Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2713/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2713 & 2714/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar ChawareFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Sanmane

Section 143(3)

…iness expenditure. Consequently, the appeal of assessee was allowed. Further, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay ITA Nos.2713 & 2714/PUN/2016 4 Jath Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom), wherein it was held that amortization of premium paid on Government securities Held to Maturity was allowed. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in not only allowing the claim of assessee but also accepting the plea of assessee that the investments were in the nature of HTM category, wherein the assessee had made change of…

Fouress Engg (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 754/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S Fouress Engg (I) Ltd. Dcit Range-5(1) 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahalaxmi Chamber, Vs. Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026 Pan:Aaacf5897K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr.K. Shivram With : Ms Nilam Jadhav -Advocates Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-10

For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop ( Sr. DR)

Section 137(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 37(1)

…Rs. 17,83,07,003/-. The Ld. AR of the assessee further submits that interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) cannot be made in view of the decision of ITA No. 754/Mum/2016 - M/s Fouress Engg (I) Ltd. jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank (366 ITR 505) (Bom). The Ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the assessee during the assessment made a claim before the Assessing Officer that dividend of Rs. 13,15,325/- on SBI Mutual Fund not claimed as exempt income and requested to treat the same as exempt income and reduce the income to that extent. The Assessing Officer failed to consider the sa…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avendus Captail P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3475/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…wer Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom), it was to be presumed that the investments which have yielded exempt income are out of such non-interest bearing funds. The CIT(A) also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd, 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and found it expedient to delete the disallowance. Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before us. 4 M/s. Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd. 9. Although Revenue has contested the order of the CIT(A), but it is abundantly clear that no fault can be found with it in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC B…

Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1828/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1828/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, 1St Floor, Alankar Cinema Building, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aabca5142M Vs.

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…, in the absence of assessee having disallowed any part of expenditure relatable to earning of exempt income. The Assessing Officer also took note of reliance of assessee on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and referred to the Balance Sheet of said concern and observed that disallowance needs to be worked out in view of provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules. The Assessing Officer thus, disallowed under Rule 8D(ii) of the Rules at ₹ 1,19,26,198/- and under Rules 8D(iii) of the Rules at ₹ 1,07,501/-, total disallowance being ₹ 1,20,33,699/-. 5. Th…

Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4269/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Icici Securities Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Income Tax Range Vs. Marg, Churchgate, 4(1), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…13) (Bom.) Also it is submitted that if own funds are more than tax-free funds, then no disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) be made. He placed reliance on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) (Bom.), CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) and HDFC Bank ltd. v. DCIT (67 taxmann.com 42)(Bom.). ICICI Securities The Ld. counsel further submits that disallowance u/s 14A does not apply to growth funds. He relies on the decision in Aker Powergas (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (70 taxmann.com 11) (Mum), Manugraph India Ltd. v.DCIT (ITA No. 4761/Mum/2013) (Mum), D.S. Purbhoodas& Co. v. ACIT (I…

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd ( Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT RG 6(3)

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 212/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Dcit, Range 6(3) (Erstwhile Known As Room No. 576, Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 6(2) (Erstwhile Known As Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Marg, Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Arati Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2018

For Appellant: Mrs. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR

Section 143(3)

…come. 5.3 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the appellant had sufficient own funds and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified. Reliance is placed by her on the decision in Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 340 (Bom), HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The Ld. counsel further refers to the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the AY 1999-2000 to AY 2003-04. 5.4 On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We are concerned here with the assessment year 2004-05. In M/s Godr…

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanghavi Exports International P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 1090/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2009-10 & 2008-09) M/s. Sanghavi Exports International P. Ltd reserves and surplus and the investments made by the assessee are far below than the surplus funds. As held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] if the assessee had sufficient own funds for making investments a presumption can be drawn that the investments in tax free securities must be deemed to have come out of own funds and not from borrowed funds and therefore no disallowance u/s. 14A is required to be made. It is the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that assessee has sufficient own funds fo…

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanghavi Exports International P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 1089/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2009-10 & 2008-09) M/s. Sanghavi Exports International P. Ltd reserves and surplus and the investments made by the assessee are far below than the surplus funds. As held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] if the assessee had sufficient own funds for making investments a presumption can be drawn that the investments in tax free securities must be deemed to have come out of own funds and not from borrowed funds and therefore no disallowance u/s. 14A is required to be made. It is the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that assessee has sufficient own funds fo…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7797/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…hat no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made since own funds of assessee are more than investment. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.  HDFC Bank Limited vs DOT (383 ITR 529 Bom)  CIT vs HDFC Bank Limited (366 ITR 505 Bom)  C1T vs Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 0340 Bom)  DCIT vs Crossborder Investment Pvt. Ltd [TTA 7658/Mum/2011 ]  Edelweiss Securities Limited vs DCIT pTA 7235/Mum/2Q 11 ]  M/s. Laadki Trading & Investment Ltd vs Addll. CIT [ITA 5493/Mum/2012]  Mrs. Anahaita Nairn Shah vs APT [ITA 7115/Mum/2013] 17. It was further argued that…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 2(1), Mumbai vs. Dhanera Diamonds, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6064/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आिकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6064/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Dhanera Diamonds Central Circle 2(1) Gw-5010 & 5021 To 5023 बिाम/ Old Cgo Building Annex Bharat Diamond Bourse Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Vs. Bkc, Bandra (E) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai-400 020 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafd-0634-K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 13/03/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nt to meet the interest free loan of Rs.1.86 crore to sister concerns. Interest Is paid to bank on borrowings for business purposes. The appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). 4.2 The Ld. AR further relied on the decision of CIT(A)-37, Mumbai (Appeal No. CIT(A)-37/I.T.124/ACCC-11/10-11 dated 19.04.2011) in appellant’s own case for A,Y,2008-09. I find that the CIT(A) has allowed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that there was sufficient self owned funds and in absence of nexus between interest bearing loans utiliz…

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

What is CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Zee Media Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Addll.CIT -RG.7(3), Mumbai

ACIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. (Formerly Known As Zee News Ltd.), Mumbai

Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, RG-10, Kolkata

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shraddha Constructions & Power Generation Pvt. Ltd., Pune

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shraddha Constructions & Power Generation Pvt. Ltd., Pune

A.C.I.T Cir - 46, Kolkata vs. The Bantra Co - Operative Bank Ltd, Howrah

The Bantra Co - Operative Bank Ltd, Howrah vs. I.T.O WD - 46(4), Kolkata

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

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jath Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd, Sangli

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jath Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd, Sangli

Fouress Engg (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avendus Captail P.Ltd, Mumbai

Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd ( Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT RG 6(3)

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanghavi Exports International P. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanghavi Exports International P. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Capital Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 2(1), Mumbai vs. Dhanera Diamonds, Mumbai