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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Wadhwagroup Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6357/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner Of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, Central Circle- Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd बिधम/ 5(4), Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Platina, Plot C-59, G Floor, Air India Building. Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Nariman Point Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…earning of the tax free income. The assessee in support of its aforesaid contention relied 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). The assessee further submitted before the A.O that as the investments in the shares of its wholly owned subsidiaries/associate companies were made with the purpose of having strategic control in the said companies, therefore, no disallowance under Sec. 14A in respect of the said strategic investments was liable to be made. 4. Alternativel…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhawan Group Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6268/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner Of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, Central Circle- Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd बिधम/ 5(4), Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Platina, Plot C-59, G Floor, Air India Building. Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Nariman Point Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…earning of the tax free income. The assessee in support of its aforesaid contention relied 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). The assessee further submitted before the A.O that as the investments in the shares of its wholly owned subsidiaries/associate companies were made with the purpose of having strategic control in the said companies, therefore, no disallowance under Sec. 14A in respect of the said strategic investments was liable to be made. 4. Alternativel…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Sharp Designer and Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1262/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे"ायपीठ“ए” पुणेम" पुणेम" पुणेम" पुणेम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ीडी. क"णाकराराव "ीडी क"णाकराराव , लेखासद"य लेखासद"य "ीडी "ीडी क"णाकराराव क"णाकराराव लेखासद"य लेखासद"य एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी, "याियकसद"यकेसम" एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी "याियकसद"यकेसम" एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी "याियकसद"यकेसम" "याियकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.2263/PUN/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Sharp Designers and Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Khinvasara I…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sharp Designers & Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2283/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे"ायपीठ“ए” पुणेम" पुणेम" पुणेम" पुणेम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ीडी. क"णाकराराव "ीडी क"णाकराराव , लेखासद"य लेखासद"य "ीडी "ीडी क"णाकराराव क"णाकराराव लेखासद"य लेखासद"य एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी, "याियकसद"यकेसम" एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी "याियकसद"यकेसम" एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी "याियकसद"यकेसम" "याियकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.2263/PUN/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Sharp Designers and Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Khinvasara I…

Sharp Designers and Engineers India P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2263/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे"ायपीठ“ए” पुणेम" पुणेम" पुणेम" पुणेम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ीडी. क"णाकराराव "ीडी क"णाकराराव , लेखासद"य लेखासद"य "ीडी "ीडी क"णाकराराव क"णाकराराव लेखासद"य लेखासद"य एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी, "याियकसद"यकेसम" एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी "याियकसद"यकेसम" एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी एवं"ीिवकासअव"थी "याियकसद"यकेसम" "याियकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.2263/PUN/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Sharp Designers and Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Khinvasara I…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4459/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…as deleted by the Tribunal upon noticing that owned funds far exceeded the investments made by the assessee and therefore, decided the matter in assessee’s favor by following the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. HDFC Ltd. 366 ITR 505]. In the impugned AY, from perusal of financial statements, it has been noted that assessee’s Share Capital and Reserves stood at Rs.133.96 Crores as against investment of Rs.62.35 Crores. Although, it is further noted that there was increase in investment to the tune of Rs.21.70 crores in the impugned AY as against increase of Rs.14.23 Crores in…

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3982/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…as deleted by the Tribunal upon noticing that owned funds far exceeded the investments made by the assessee and therefore, decided the matter in assessee’s favor by following the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. HDFC Ltd. 366 ITR 505]. In the impugned AY, from perusal of financial statements, it has been noted that assessee’s Share Capital and Reserves stood at Rs.133.96 Crores as against investment of Rs.62.35 Crores. Although, it is further noted that there was increase in investment to the tune of Rs.21.70 crores in the impugned AY as against increase of Rs.14.23 Crores in…

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3981/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…as deleted by the Tribunal upon noticing that owned funds far exceeded the investments made by the assessee and therefore, decided the matter in assessee’s favor by following the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. HDFC Ltd. 366 ITR 505]. In the impugned AY, from perusal of financial statements, it has been noted that assessee’s Share Capital and Reserves stood at Rs.133.96 Crores as against investment of Rs.62.35 Crores. Although, it is further noted that there was increase in investment to the tune of Rs.21.70 crores in the impugned AY as against increase of Rs.14.23 Crores in…

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3980/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…as deleted by the Tribunal upon noticing that owned funds far exceeded the investments made by the assessee and therefore, decided the matter in assessee’s favor by following the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. HDFC Ltd. 366 ITR 505]. In the impugned AY, from perusal of financial statements, it has been noted that assessee’s Share Capital and Reserves stood at Rs.133.96 Crores as against investment of Rs.62.35 Crores. Although, it is further noted that there was increase in investment to the tune of Rs.21.70 crores in the impugned AY as against increase of Rs.14.23 Crores in…

Krishiraj Trading Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Palghar

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

ITA 1141/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1141/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. Dcit 6(2), B-Wing, 9Th Floor, Trade World, Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ Kamala Mill Compound, Room No. 563, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, 5Th Floor, Maharshi Karve Lower Parel, Marg, Mumbai- 400 020. Mumbai- 400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaack2257N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) :

For Appellant: Sh. Mitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…exempt income yielding investments in shares was made from the mixed funds of the assessee. We are of the considered view that keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom), the A.O prior to arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, ought to have verified the availability of the owned funds with the assessee. We thus restore the issue pertaining to disallowance made by the A.O under Sec. 14A(2) r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication. The A.O is directed to readjudicate the issue as regard…