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)

DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ashrit Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3284/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3284/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Shloka ShahaFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…diture u/s 14A is warranted. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.(2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom. HC) and also decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT v HDFC Bank Ltd.(2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom) and also other decisions of the courts/tribunal and contended that no disallowance of the interest expenditure can be made u/s 14A. It was submitted that there is an assumption that the assessee has applied its own interest free funds available for investment in the instruments capable of yielding exempt income. It was submitted that the inv…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4316/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…pt income yielding investment has not been disputed by the Departmental Authorities. Therefore, applying ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), we hold that no disallowance of interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made. As far as disallowance of administrative expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, it is the contention of the assessee that one of the employee is looking after the investment activity. Therefore, the salary cost of the employee has already been…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4234/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…pt income yielding investment has not been disputed by the Departmental Authorities. Therefore, applying ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), we hold that no disallowance of interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made. As far as disallowance of administrative expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, it is the contention of the assessee that one of the employee is looking after the investment activity. Therefore, the salary cost of the employee has already been…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 750/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 23

…penses in the present case of Rs.49,42,473 made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules should be deleted. We order accordingly." The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal has followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 335 . When the issue is already covered by a decision of the High Court of Bombay with which we concur, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration as canvassed.” Accordingly, in case when the assessee’s own fund is more than the investment made in the tax free securities then…

Bijal Ashok Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3089/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3089/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Bijal Ashok Shah Acit, Central Circle-2(1), 187/189, Gurukul Chamber, Mumbai बनाम/ Mumbadevi Road, Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Avzps 0810 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashok Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14A

…ah vs. ACIT of the assessee submitted the issue that when there is sufficient non-interest bearing funds to make the investment, no disallowance is called for u/s. 14A has been duly upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 368 ITR 377 (Bom). 5. Upon careful consideration, I note that it is the assessee’s contention that the assessee has sufficient non-interest bearing funds to make tax free investments. This issue was duly raised before the ld. CIT(A), but he has not adjudicated upon the issue. Hence, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not complete to this extent. Hence, in order…

Kgk Diamonds (I) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the disallowance under section 14A is hereby deleted

ITA 868/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…sion of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. 221 Taxman 479, and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505. It was further submitted that the said investments were made for acquiring controlling stake and were part of strategic investments and they were not made with an intention of earning tax free income. Accordingly section 14A does not apply to such investment, in support, reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Chem…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. B Arunumar Capital & Credit Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4147/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 14A

…10-11 in ITA No. 4148/Mum/2016 dated 29.12.2016, wherein the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the assessee for exclusion of interest disallowance, by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). He submitted that in the above said case, it was held that there is no requirement to make any disallowance out of interest expenditure if interest free fund available with the assessee is in excess of the value of investment. 4. We heard learned Departmental Representative, who supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. We notic…

Roha Dyechem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1991/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Central Circle-43 Plot-A-44/45, Road No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Midc, Andheri(E), Mumbai400020. Mumbai-400092

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Jenardhanan/Saurabh

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…March 2010 that its own funds was Rs.2,894,197,392/-. The investment as at 31st March 2010 was Rs.868,635,071/- In HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), 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 : Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. 3 “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 fre…

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

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

ITA 120/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Stci Finance Limited The Deputy Commissioner A/B, I-802, A Wing, 8Th Floor, Of Income Tax-I(3)(1), Marathon Innova, Marathon Aayakar Bhavan, Nextgen Compound, Off Churchgate, Mumbai Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aagcs9709K

For Appellant: Kartik Natrajan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…First Appellate Authority(FAA) and made elaborate submissions. After considering the available material, he held that in the earlier two AYs no disallowance was made under clause (ii) of the Rule 8D (2)of the Rules. He referred to the cases of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and held that assessee’s capital, profit reserves were higher than the investments made in tax-free securities, that it had to be presumed that investments made by the assessee were out of interest refunds, that own fund of the assessee were to the tune of Rs. 784.34 crores, that the investment…

ACIT, Nainital vs. M/S. the Nainital Bank Ltd., Nainital

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5056/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Rastogi, CA

Section 14A

…ments yielding tax free income. Not only the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the appellant’s own case (supra) but other High Courts have also affirmed this principle: 1. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd reported in 370 ITR 184 (All). 2. HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bombay). 3. UTI Bank Ltd reported in 215 Taxman 8 (Gujarat). Following this settled position of law and the admitted fact that of the total interest free funds available with the appellant, only 4.16% has been invested to yield the tax free income, the addition made is deleted in full. Once the interest component is removed then there could be…

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

In the result, this ground of the

ITA 2161/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 14ASection 250Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 1798/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & I.T.A. No. 2161/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hindustan Gum & Chemical Ltd..….…….………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Birla Building 4th Floor 9/1, R. N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AAACH 7214 E] The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Kolkata……………………………..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan 7th Floor P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances by: Shri J.P. Khaitan & Shri Sanjay Bh…

Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata

In the result, this ground of the

ITA 1798/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 14ASection 250Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 1798/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & I.T.A. No. 2161/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hindustan Gum & Chemical Ltd..….…….………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Birla Building 4th Floor 9/1, R. N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AAACH 7214 E] The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Kolkata……………………………..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan 7th Floor P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances by: Shri J.P. Khaitan & Shri Sanjay Bh…

Mirah Dekor P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner 208, Parvati Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Cc-14, Vs. 10 Th Sunmill Compound, Lower Pratishtha Bhavan, Parel (W), Mumbai-13 Floor, Mumbai-2 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aabcm4262A

For Appellant: Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ome or any expenditure is incurred for these investments or for earning of exempt income. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel the presumption in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom), is that the investment is made by the assessee out of his own surplus funds. When this was confronted to the learned Senior Departmental Representative, he could not controvert the argument of the learned counsel. 5. After going through the facts and circumstances in entirety, we are of the view that the assessee is able to show that it i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6443/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, CA &For Respondent: Ms Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…s. The ld. AR contended that amortized premium on HTM securities be allowed as deduction. It CIT(A). He submitted that the additional claim has been raised because of the favorable judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Since this issue was not raised before the authorities below, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the assessee’s claim in the light of the judicial precedents available on the issue. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable oppor…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5969/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, CA &For Respondent: Ms Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…s. The ld. AR contended that amortized premium on HTM securities be allowed as deduction. It CIT(A). He submitted that the additional claim has been raised because of the favorable judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). Since this issue was not raised before the authorities below, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the assessee’s claim in the light of the judicial precedents available on the issue. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable oppor…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5968/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 14A

…en earned and some expenditure has been incurred for earning such exempt income, then disallowance u/s 14A is called for de hors rule 8D. The ld. AR has placed on record a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) in which the Hon'ble High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal in restricting the disallowance to 1% of the gross exempt income. No contrary view in the pre-Rule 8D period has been brought on record by the ld. DR. Respectfully following the precedent, we direct that the disallowance u/s 14A be restricted to 1% of the gross exemp…

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Keventer Agro Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2768/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 40(1)(a)Section 41(1)

…meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal” Similarly the ld. AR also relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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…

M/S Keventer Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl.C.I.T., Range-4, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2576/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 40(1)(a)Section 41(1)

…meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal” Similarly the ld. AR also relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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 2(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Capital P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit 2(2) Morgan Stanley India Capital P Ltd Mumbai 18F/19F, Tower 2, Vs. One Indiabulls Centre 841 Senapatibapat Marg, Mumbai 400 013 Pan Aabcb4845Q (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: S/Shri Sunil Motilala &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…,12,364/- and in this year the shareholders fund i.e. assessee’s own funds are to the tune of ` 598,81,50,200/- According to him this is more than the investment made and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) the presumption is that the assessee has made investment in instruments which gives tax free income is out of own funds and, hence, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of 4 Morgan Stanley India Capital P Ltd section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. When a query was put forward to learned senior Departmental Representati…

ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Milton Plastics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that disallowance made u/s 14A of the I T Act, as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not correct since the reserve & Surplus of the assessee company is more than investment relying on the decision in the case of HDFC Ltd.( 366 ITR 505) without appreciating the fact that the decision of HDFC Ltd. is not applicable to the instant case since the same relate to A.Y. 2001-02 to 2005-06 which is prior to the insertion of Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-09 which is mandatory if A.O is satisfied that the disallowance u/s. 14A is required to be made. 2. Whether on the facts…

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.

DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ashrit Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(3), Mumbai

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore

Bijal Ashok Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

Kgk Diamonds (I) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Jaipur

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. B Arunumar Capital & Credit Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

Roha Dyechem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

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

ACIT, Nainital vs. M/S. the Nainital Bank Ltd., Nainital

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

Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata

Mirah Dekor P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Keventer Agro Ltd., Kolkata

M/S Keventer Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl.C.I.T., Range-4, Kolkata

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Capital P.Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Milton Plastics Ltd, Mumbai