CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Saryu Properties and Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 5675 & 5676/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13&2013-14)

…ived any exempted income either as or share of profit from the firm. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the following decisions on the point of Jurisdictional High Court: M/s Saryu Properties & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. a) CIT vs. I-IDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (BOM) b) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power 313 ITR 340 (BOM) c) HDFC vs. DCIT 383 ITR 529 (BOM) 4. The learned CIT (A)erred in not taking into account following decisions holding that disallowance u/s 14(a)cannot exceed exempted income i) DAGA Global Chemicals vs ACIT-ITA No. 5592/M/12 dated 02.02.20 13 ii) Sahara India Fin. Corp. vs DCIT…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 4(2), Cent. Range - 4, Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shrib. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6002/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

…s investment, the presumption can very well be made that investments have been made from interest free funds and not from borrowed funds. In this circumstances, while placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Bombay High court in the HDFC Bank Vrs CIT 366 ITR 505 (Bom), we upheld this portion of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR also pointed out that the strategic investments stand at Rs. 198.35 crore out of total investment of Rs. 258.40 crore. 8 I.T.A. No. 6002/Mum/2016 M/s K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. Ltd. From the facts as well as documents placed on record, we further noticed that the assessee had…

Essel Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…nd ` 198.10 crores as on 31.3.2009 and 31.3.2008 respectively. Admittedly, the interest free fund available with the assessee is more than the value of investments and hence, as per decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), no disallowance is called for from out of interest expenditure. We noticed that the Assessing Officer has disallowed a sum of ` 664.08 lakhs out of interest expenditure and, in view of the foregoing discussions, the same is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assess…

Sequent Scientific Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4902/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sequent Scientific Limited Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- बिधम/ 116, Vardhaman Industrial Tax Range-3(3), Aayakar Bhawan, Estate, Lbs Marg, Gokul Vs. Mumbai. Nagar, Thane 400 601. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacv1501G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) :

…exempt income yielding investments of Rs.6,08,36,459/- by the assessee during the year. We find that our aforesaid view stand fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner Of Income-tax Vs. HDFC Bank Limited. (2013) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). We further find that the ld. A.R had averred before us that as the assessee had not received any exempt dividend income during the year under consideration, therefore, there was no occasion for making any disallowance under Sec.14A. We are persuaded to be in agreement with the aforesaid claim of the ld. A.R, and are of the considered view…

Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

…s relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.” (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Moreover, the Ld. A.R. has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505. Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the appeal may be allowed. 5. The Ld. D.R relied heavily on the orders of authorities below. It was submitted that since the AO has rightly observed that part of 6 ITA No.3298/M/2012 7 ITA No.3537/M/2012 M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. interest incurred had proximate connection with investment s in…

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

…s relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.” (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Moreover, the Ld. A.R. has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505. Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the appeal may be allowed. 5. The Ld. D.R relied heavily on the orders of authorities below. It was submitted that since the AO has rightly observed that part of 6 ITA No.3298/M/2012 7 ITA No.3537/M/2012 M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. interest incurred had proximate connection with investment s in…

Saryu Properties and Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Saryu Properties & Hotels Pvt. Dcit-Cc 4(2), 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Ltd. बनाम/ Plot No. 25, Girnar, ‘B’Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. 1St Floor, Pali Mala Road, Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 6983 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sunil K. Ramaro & Shri Vinay Sinha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Dated 30.06.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Not Admitting The Additional Grounds Relating To Disallowance U/S I4-A Holding That The Said Disallowance Was In The Original

…The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the when appellant company had not received any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14-A as held in CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. (2015) - 372 ITR 97 (GUJ) Delite Enterprise (P) Ltd. - 366 ITR 505 (BOM) &, 383 ITR 529 (BOM) 9. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the when appellant had enough Surplus of interest free funds, no disallowance u/s. 14-A can be made as held in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. - 366 JTR 505 (BOM) 7 383 ITR 529 (BOM) 4. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) adjudicated the above grounds as under…

Tolani P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Sp RG 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 1998-99 Tolani Pvt Ltd. Addl. Cit Spl. Range 31, 10.A, Bakhtawar Vs. Mumbai Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…of ` 16,01,31,377/- as is apparent from page 87 of the paper- book (balance sheet). We noted that the disallowance has simply being made by the AO on estimate basis. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505, we are of the view that no such disallowance can be made as the natural inference will be that the assessee made investment in tax free securities out of its own funds. We, therefore, delete the said disallowance. Thus, additional ground no.2 stands allowed. 11. Now coming to the summarized ground taken by the assessee. Ground no.1 & 2 relat…

Anand Rathi Capital Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7543, 7544, 7515 & 7546/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Capital Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Advisors P. Ltd, 47A, 3Rd R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Floor, Plot No. 308 Air India Building, Vs. Hanuman Bldg, Perin Nariman Point, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacr2791N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

…the investments yielding tax free income, therefore, no disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for in its hands, relied on 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 ld. A.R submitted that the disallowance under Sec. 14A in the present case, was rightly shown by the assessee in its return of income at Rs. Nil. The Ld. A.R further submitted that the CIT(A) after observing that the A.O had failed to give any cogent reason for rejecting the claim of Nil disallowance claimed by the assessee under Sec.…

Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7527 & 7526/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Global Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Finance Ltd., 4Th Floor, R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Silver Metropolis Bldg., Air India Building, Vs. Western Express Highway, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabcr1136N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

…the investments yielding tax free income, therefore, no disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for in its hands, relied on 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 ld. A.R submitted that the disallowance under Sec. 14A in the present case, as shown by the assessee in its return of income at Rs. 2,74,877/- was liable to be P a g e | 10 ITA Nos. 7514,7526,7527,7543,7544,7546 & 7469 to 7474/Mum/2016 M/s Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd., Vs. DCIT Cen. Cir.-5(1) worked out as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), i.e.…

Web Works India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran,Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Web Works India P. Ltd Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बिधम/ Unit No. 124, Unique Ind Est., Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020. Off. Veer Savarkar Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacw3955H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…the ‘Balance sheet’ of the assessee company as on 31.03.2011 wherein the aforesaid facts stood revealed. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.(2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). The ld. A.R further submitted that the A.O while making the disallowance under Sec.14A had failed to record his satisfaction as to why the disallowance shown by the assessee was liable to be 4 Web Works India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT dislodged. Per contra, the ld. Departmental rep…

Siddhesh Capital Market Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Amarjit Singh, J.M. आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 6532/Mum/2012,धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, P.Ltd,122, Maker Chamber Iii, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai. Pan: Aaccs4582N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2489/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Vs. Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2517/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Revenue By: Shri V. Justin-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta स नर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/01/2018 आयकर अधधधनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1) के अन्द्तगवत आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सदस्य,राजेन्द्र के अन सार -Per Rajendra,Am: Challenging The Orders Dated 26.06.2012 & 12.01.2015 Of Cit(A)-7 & Cit-8,Respectively, The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years.As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common,So,We Are Adjudicat- Ing Them Together. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance,Trading, Investment & Derivative Transaction In Shares & Securities. The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessments & Assessed Incomes Can Be Tabulated As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Asstt.Date Assessed Income 09-10 22.09.2009 (-) Rs.81,01,51,079/- 30.11.2011 (-) Rs.80,82,06,669/- 10-11 21.09.2010 Rs. 48,14,034/- 11.02.2013 Rs. 49,72,360/-

…e. Though the decision of this court in RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. was rendered in the context of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was consciously applied by the court while interpreting section 14A of the Act in HDFC BANK LTD. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom). It is clear that for the first time in the case of HDFC BANK LTD. the court took a view that the presumption laid down in RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. with regard to investment in tax-free securities coming out of the assessee's own funds in case they are in excess of the investments made in the securities (notwithstanding the fact th…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Siddhesh Capital Market Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Amarjit Singh, J.M. आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 6532/Mum/2012,धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, P.Ltd,122, Maker Chamber Iii, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai. Pan: Aaccs4582N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2489/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Vs. Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2517/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Revenue By: Shri V. Justin-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta स नर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/01/2018 आयकर अधधधनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1) के अन्द्तगवत आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सदस्य,राजेन्द्र के अन सार -Per Rajendra,Am: Challenging The Orders Dated 26.06.2012 & 12.01.2015 Of Cit(A)-7 & Cit-8,Respectively, The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years.As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common,So,We Are Adjudicat- Ing Them Together. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance,Trading, Investment & Derivative Transaction In Shares & Securities. The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessments & Assessed Incomes Can Be Tabulated As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Asstt.Date Assessed Income 09-10 22.09.2009 (-) Rs.81,01,51,079/- 30.11.2011 (-) Rs.80,82,06,669/- 10-11 21.09.2010 Rs. 48,14,034/- 11.02.2013 Rs. 49,72,360/-

…e. Though the decision of this court in RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. was rendered in the context of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was consciously applied by the court while interpreting section 14A of the Act in HDFC BANK LTD. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom). It is clear that for the first time in the case of HDFC BANK LTD. the court took a view that the presumption laid down in RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. with regard to investment in tax-free securities coming out of the assessee's own funds in case they are in excess of the investments made in the securities (notwithstanding the fact th…

Siddhesh Capital Market Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Amarjit Singh, J.M. आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 6532/Mum/2012,धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, P.Ltd,122, Maker Chamber Iii, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai. Pan: Aaccs4582N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2489/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Vs. Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2517/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Revenue By: Shri V. Justin-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta स नर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/01/2018 आयकर अधधधनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1) के अन्द्तगवत आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सदस्य,राजेन्द्र के अन सार -Per Rajendra,Am: Challenging The Orders Dated 26.06.2012 & 12.01.2015 Of Cit(A)-7 & Cit-8,Respectively, The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years.As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common,So,We Are Adjudicat- Ing Them Together. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance,Trading, Investment & Derivative Transaction In Shares & Securities. The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessments & Assessed Incomes Can Be Tabulated As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Asstt.Date Assessed Income 09-10 22.09.2009 (-) Rs.81,01,51,079/- 30.11.2011 (-) Rs.80,82,06,669/- 10-11 21.09.2010 Rs. 48,14,034/- 11.02.2013 Rs. 49,72,360/-

…e. Though the decision of this court in RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. was rendered in the context of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was consciously applied by the court while interpreting section 14A of the Act in HDFC BANK LTD. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom). It is clear that for the first time in the case of HDFC BANK LTD. the court took a view that the presumption laid down in RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. with regard to investment in tax-free securities coming out of the assessee's own funds in case they are in excess of the investments made in the securities (notwithstanding the fact th…

Pinky Ventures P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Pinky Ventures Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 6-A 6Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Income Tax, Circle-13(1)(2), Chambers Opp. Mig Club, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp 2932K

…urchase of shares from which exempt income in the shape of dividend income is earned by assessee. In view of the above, the presumption is in favour of assessee. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505, we delete the disallowance and allow the appeal of the assessee. 4. As regards to the disallowance under rule 8D of the Rules while computing income under section 115JB of the Act on the adjustment of Book Profit, the same is covered by the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. [2017] 58…