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.

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1951/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1951/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. Cit-1(1)(1), M/S. Bennet Coleman & Company Ltd. बनाम/ 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Times Of India Bldg., M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4373 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Venkatraman ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. P. Meena

For Appellant: Shri S. VenkatramanFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena

Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 2(33)

…in making investments to earn tax-free income. The Ld. A.R, has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and CIT 6 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Bennet Coleman & Company Ltd. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505] to argue that no disallowance of interest expense on borrowings is warranted when own funds have only been used to make investments on which tax free income was earned. 5.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) at page 344 laid down the following principles: "If there be interest-free fund…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dalmia Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1369/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1369/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle- 12(1), Kolkata. -Vs- M/S Dalmia Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcd 1813 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Ashim Chowdhury, ACA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 94(7)

…order shows due application of mind to all aspects. In respect to this, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) wherein it was held that no disallowance of interest under the second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules could be made if it is proved that the assessee is having sufficient own funds with it. With regard to non-recording of satisfaction he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek I…

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Apollo Logisolutions Ltd, Raigad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1880/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Dcit 15(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Apollo Logisolutions Ltd., R.No.470, 4Th Floor Survey No.59, Aayakar Bhavan, Kon Savia Rasayami Road M.K.Road Somahane Mumbai – 400 020 Panvel, Raigad Pan/Gir No. Aaecs1502L Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri V.Vidyadhar Assessee By Shri Madhur Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…funds available in the form of share capital, reserves amounting to Rs.5966 lakhs, against which investment was only to the tune of Rs.1552.25 lakhs as on 31/03/2012. Reliance was placed on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 in support of the proposition that in case of assessee having its capital profit, reserve and surplus, more than the investment, then it is presumed that investment is out of assessee’s own interest free funds. In the instant case before us there is a categorical finding by the CIT(A) with regard to the interest free funds available with the asse…

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6212/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6212/Mum/2011& 1187/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09& 2009-10)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish V. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…tted that the assessee was having own funds and no borrowed funds were used to earn exempt income and therefore the provision of section 14A(2) r.w.r 8D is no attracted. In this respect, assessee relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT vrs. HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505) (Bom HC) and HDFC Vrs. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom HC). It was also submitted that the unsecured loans, taken were utilized for giving ICD’s (Inter Corporate Deposits) to parties at higher rate of interest. Ld. AR further submitted that the strategic investments are to be ignored for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act and in this re…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5604/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhita No.5604/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2009-10) Dcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Corporate Centre, Bandra Vs. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Revenue By : Shri C. Naresh (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, [For Short The Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 30.06.2016 & 22.11. 2011 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. The Revenue In Both The Appeals Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal; Hence Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Decided By Common Order. For Appreciation Of Fact, We Are Discussing The Fact For Assessment Year 2008-09. Though The Revenue Has Raised Two Ground Of Appeal, However, As Per Our Considered View The Sole Ground Of Appeal Is Whether Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Broken Period Interest Expenditure. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Banking Company. The Assessee Is Carrying Banking Business. The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Was Completed On 30.12.2010 Under Ita No. 5604/Mum/2016- M/S Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri C. Naresh (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5604/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2009-10) DCIT-2(1)(1) M/s Bank of Baroda Room No. 561, 5th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Corporate Centre, Bandra Vs. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 PAN: AAACB1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR) Revenue by : Shri C. Naresh (AR) Date of hearing : 01.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SI…

Shree Madhur Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Dhule vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1530/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri M.R. ShirudeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of the Paper Book. For the proportion that when interest free funds are more than investments, then no disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) is called for, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Limited reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom.). He further submitted that during the year under consideration, assessee had received dividend of Rs.7,500/- from the shares of Shamrao Vitthal Co-op Bank Ltd., held by the assessee. He submitted that these dividends were not eligible for exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act and therefore no exemption is claimed and in fact the income from di…

DCIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2817/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

For Appellant: Farrokh V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: B. Sriniwas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…T(A). This fact came to light only when a conference was held with the learned Sr. Counsel Shri F. V. Irani who advised the assessee to file cross objection in view of the proposition of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT 366 ITR 505. The relevant para of the condonation petition reads as under: - “7. During a conference held on 13.02.2018 with Mr. F.V. Irani, Counsel, in connection with the hearing of the above appeal fixed for hearing on 14.02.2018, it was realized that the no Cross Objection was filed by the Cross Objector against the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A).…

Major Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

ITA 2153/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.2153/M/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Major Brands (India) Pvt. Vs. Acit-5(2), Mumbai Ltd. 401,Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Aayakarbhavan,M.K. Road,Andheri(East), Mumbai- Road,Mumbai-400020. 400059. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm 4949 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Paras S.Savla, Ar Respondent By :Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Paras S.Savla, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of such mutual funds. To support his plea, the Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions wherein it was held that if the own funds are more than the investment made, no disallowance can be made under rule 8D(2) (ii):  CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. – 366 ITR 505 (bom)(HC)  CIT v. Gujarat Narmade Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. – 221 Taxman 479 (Guj) (HC)  CIT v. Amod Stamping (P) Ltd. – 223 taxmann 256(GUJ)(HC)  CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. – 358 ITR 323(Guj) (HC)  CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd. 363 ITR 474(Guj) (HC)  CIT v. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd. 221 Taxman 109(Guj) (HC)…

DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Freins Engineering Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2188/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. jagannathan, C.A

Section 32(1)(iia)

…ance of ₹.25,121/- and ₹.22,888/- in the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as by following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505, the ld. CIT(A) held that there can be no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. 7.1 Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and the ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) went in wrong to presume that no component of borrowed capital has been employed in making the investments and pleaded that the order of…

DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Freins Engineering Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2147/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. jagannathan, C.A

Section 32(1)(iia)

Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blea.C.I.T. Cc – 8(4) V. M/S. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No: Aaacs 7934 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiv PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Purushotham Kumar

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.C.I.T. CC – 8(4) v. M/s. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 6th Floor, Room No. 658, 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Nariman point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN NO: AAACS 7934 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shiv Prakash Department by : Shri Purushotham Kumar Date of Hearing : 23.11.2017 Date of pronouncement : 16.02.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of…

Bayer Crop Science Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7818/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

…d the disallowance under Rule 8D at Rs.10.55 lakhs. The Learned AR submitted that own funds available with the assessee is in far excess of value of investments and hence as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDF Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), no disallowance out of interest expenditure is called for. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has computed the disallowance out of interest expenditure at Rs.5,57,455/-, which needs to be deleted. The Learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has computed the disallowance out of administrative expenses at Rs. 4,98,008/- as per provis…

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hindusthan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1601/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…were made only out of own funds of the assessee by placing reliance on the following decisions of various High Courts: i) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Power Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom); ii) HDFC Bank reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom); We find that own funds available in the form of capital and reserves and surplus were Rs. 15769.49 lacs and whereas the investments in mutual funds were only Rs. 43.81 lacs as on 31.03.2010. The net profit earned during the year and available for appropriation was Rs. 1736.90 lacs. These facts clearly prove that the investments were made…

Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1410/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5269/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mayur Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

…king investment and hence, no disallowance is called for in respect of interest expenses. This legal proportion is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay high court in the case of CIT vs Reliance utilities and power ltd. (supra) and CIT vs HDFC Bank ltd. 366 ITR 515 wherein it is held that if the assessee is having both interest free as well as interest bearing funds at his disposal, the presumption has to be that the interest free funds have been utilized for interest free loans. In this case, admittedly assessee’s own funds are more than its investment in shares and capital accounts and hence, we are of th…

Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 4992/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mayur Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Infrastructure Finance Co.Lt, Mumbai

ITA 4331/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 4331/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S L & T Infrastructure Income Tax-14(2)(1), Finance Co. Ltd. 3-B, Laxmi बिधम/ Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Towers, 2Nd Floor, Bandra Vs. 400 020 Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcl2283L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Ranjan, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14A

…e 8D(2)(ii) was called for in its hands. The CIT(A) supported his aforesaid view by relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). P a g e | 8 ACIT Vs. M/S L & T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd. The CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 12,14,76,213/- made by the A.O. 8. That as regards the disallowance of administrative expenses i.e. @ 0.5 % of average investment made by the A.O under Sec. 14A r.w.…

Tata Investment Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1509/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tata Investment Corporation Acit-2(3) Ltd. Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Vs. Elphistone Building, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 10, Veer Nariman Road, Road Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaact4120F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.M. Golvala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. M.M. Golvala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…appellant as at 31st March 2011, we find that it had its own funds of Rs.1,63,968.62 lacs which exceed total investment of Rs.1,29,088.44 lacs. 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 CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 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…

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ground of appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2483/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sbi Capital Markets Ltd. Addl.Cit Ltu, 202, Maker Tower E, Cuff 29Th Floor Centre-I, Vs. Parade, World Trade Centre, Mumbai-400005 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacs7914E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajnikant V. Chaniyari, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rajnikant V. Chaniyari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

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

…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…

Revashankar Gems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1046/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Revashankar Gems Limited V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 322, Panchratna, 14, Range 5(3), R.No. 573, 5Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mama Parmanand Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Opera House, Mumbai 400 004

For Appellant: Shri Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…essment Year 2008-09 to 2010-11 had accepted the contention of the assessee that, if adequate interest free funds are available then no disallowance needed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505] and CIT v. Reliance Utilities Power Limited [313 ITR 340] and the matter was set-aside. He also further submitted that the Assessing Officer passed order giving effect to the Tribunal order for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010- 11 accepting that the interest free funds are much more than the investments and no disallowance was made towards…