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 14ASection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 37(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8DSection 10(34)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

disallowance of interest expendituredisallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 14abook profitsrevenue expendituresection 115jsection 115jbsection 32capital expendituresection 37(1)section 36

Judgments citing CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

ACIT Cen Cir 21 Cen RG 5, Mumbai vs. Sunteck Wealthmax Capital P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4977/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “आई”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.3672 and 4977/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner of M/s Satguru Capital and Finance Income Tax- Central Circle-- Pvt Ltd., 21, Central Range-5, Room (Now Known as M/s Sunteck बनाम/ No.612, 4th floor, Aayakar Wealthmax Capital Pvt Ltd.) 5th floor, Suntek Central 37/40 Bhavan, Vs. MK Road, Subhash Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mubmai-400057 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : I.T.A. No…

Suntech Wealthmax Capital P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4914/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “आई”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.3672 and 4977/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner of M/s Satguru Capital and Finance Income Tax- Central Circle-- Pvt Ltd., 21, Central Range-5, Room (Now Known as M/s Sunteck बनाम/ No.612, 4th floor, Aayakar Wealthmax Capital Pvt Ltd.) 5th floor, Suntek Central 37/40 Bhavan, Vs. MK Road, Subhash Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mubmai-400057 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : I.T.A. No…

Satguru Capital & Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4564/MUM/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “आई”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.3672 and 4977/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner of M/s Satguru Capital and Finance Income Tax- Central Circle-- Pvt Ltd., 21, Central Range-5, Room (Now Known as M/s Sunteck बनाम/ No.612, 4th floor, Aayakar Wealthmax Capital Pvt Ltd.) 5th floor, Suntek Central 37/40 Bhavan, Vs. MK Road, Subhash Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mubmai-400057 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : I.T.A. No…

ACIT CC 21 Cen RG 5, Mumbai vs. Satguru Capital and Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3672/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “आई”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.3672 and 4977/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner of M/s Satguru Capital and Finance Income Tax- Central Circle-- Pvt Ltd., 21, Central Range-5, Room (Now Known as M/s Sunteck बनाम/ No.612, 4th floor, Aayakar Wealthmax Capital Pvt Ltd.) 5th floor, Suntek Central 37/40 Bhavan, Vs. MK Road, Subhash Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mubmai-400057 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : I.T.A. No…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 2(4), Mumbai vs. Twinkle Enviro Tech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5052/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-2(4) Twinkle Enviro Tech P. Room No. 802, 8Th Ltd. 317/318 Parvatiindl. Vs. Floor, Old Cgo Estate, Sunmill Building, Annex Compound, Lower M.K. Road Parel(W) Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aaact4038N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…appears to be wholly consistent with the scheme of the Act and the object/purpose of levy of tax on income. 6.2 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 : “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…

Briggs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3961/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1911/Mum/2008 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

Section 14A

…page no. 31 of paper book for AY 2006-07 wherein own source of funds, capital + reserve has been shown at Rs. 58.85 crores and the stock in trade has been shown at Rs. 11.1 crores. 28 We have also considered the judgment in the case of CIT Vrs. HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 (Bombay) and CIT Vrs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) and therefore, after considering the legal proposition, we set aside this ground to the file of AO with direction to examine 20 I.T.A. No. 1911 & 2596/Mum/2008, 3744 & 3416/Mum/2009, 3960 & 4747/Mum/2011 & 3961/Mum/2011 Briggs Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. afresh, there…

ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Nagreeka Capital & Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue,

ITA 127/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.127, 128 & 129/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10,2010-11& 2011-12 I.T.O, Ward-6(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S Nagreeka Capital & Infrastructure Ltd. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcn 5627 N (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By : None Revenue/Departmentby : Shri Kalyannath, Acit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Three Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, Are Directed By The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolkata, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since These Three Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri KalyanNath, ACIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…f borrowed funds. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee’s contention had been supported by the details of availability of utilization of own funds, further considering the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.366 ITR 505, the benefit of the assessee’s own funds being available for investment in shares would M/s Nagreeka Capital & Infrastructure Ltd. ITA No.127, 128 & 129/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 have to be allowed. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed by the CIT(A) to restrict the disallowance towards proportionate interest under Rule 8D(ii) o…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dsp Blackarock Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, as above

ITA 2995/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi
Section 10(35)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…mention, the 7 M/s. DSP Blackrock Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer shall consider the reliance placed by the assessee on the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) and HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and any submission that may be canvassed by the assessee before him and only thereafter he shall pass an order on the aforesaid limited aspect, as per law. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th September, 2017. (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBE…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2346/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. Mumbai. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. M.K. Road Parekh Marg, Mumba-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. 6Th Floor Aayakar Marg, Churchgate, Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Mumba-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, DR

…ssessment year the net worth of the assessee-company is much more than investment made in the shares and units. 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 : “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…

Icici Securities Ltd (Earlier Known As Icici Brokerage Services Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 1906/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. Mumbai. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. M.K. Road Parekh Marg, Mumba-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. 6Th Floor Aayakar Marg, Churchgate, Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Mumba-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, DR

…ssessment year the net worth of the assessee-company is much more than investment made in the shares and units. 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 : “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…

D.C.I.T.4(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Securities Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2702/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. Mumbai. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. M.K. Road Parekh Marg, Mumba-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. 6Th Floor Aayakar Marg, Churchgate, Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Mumba-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, DR

…ssessment year the net worth of the assessee-company is much more than investment made in the shares and units. 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 : “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…

Icici Securities Ltd ( Earlier Known As Brokerage Services Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2437/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. Mumbai. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. M.K. Road Parekh Marg, Mumba-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. 6Th Floor Aayakar Marg, Churchgate, Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Mumba-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, DR

…ssessment year the net worth of the assessee-company is much more than investment made in the shares and units. 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 : “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…

Prayas Engineering Limited(Formerly Known As Prayas Castings Ltd.), Anand vs. The ACIT., Anand Range, Anand

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1146/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Javeri, Sr. D.R
Section 14A

…t find any merit in making the disallowance on account of proportionate expenses. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 followed by HDFC Bank in 366 ITR 505. 10. However, at the same time, we are of the opinion that some reasonable disallowance ought to be made in respect of earning of the exempt income. ITA No. 1145 & 1146/Ahd/2014 4 . A.Y.2006-07 In our considered opinion, disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- should meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly, direct the A.O. to restrict the disallowance t…

Pn Nj Industries P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 10(3)(Old) DCIT Cir 15(2)(2) (New), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2324/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Pn Nj Industries Pvt. Acit, Circle-10(3) (Old) Ltd. Dcit, Circle-15(2)(2) Vs. Plot No. A-470, Ttc (New) Industries Area, Midc, 4Th Floor, Mahape, P.O. Ghansoi, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Navi Mumbai-400701 Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaccs1519B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Govind Javeri, Ar Revenue By: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Govind Javeri, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…pears to be 6 wholly consistent with the scheme of the Act and the object/purpose of levy of tax on income. 7.2 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 : “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…

Lakshmiwadi Mines & Minerals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1079/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lakshmiwadi Mines & Ito-2(2)(2) Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 548, 5Th Vs. 20, Yusuf Building 43 Floor M.G. Road, Fort Aayakarbhavan Mumbai-400023. M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl1756F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Purushottam Kashyap, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Purushottam Kashyap, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ent made was Rs.1174.63 lacs. Therefore, she submits that the disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(ii) amounting to Rs.43,98,918/- made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is not called for. The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) 5.1 Regarding the disallowance made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld. counsel submits that the figure of both closing investment as on 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010 includes an amount of Rs.1,07,49,599/- credited on account of revaluation of investment and therefore, the above should have been considered by the AO. 6. Per contra, the Ld.…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Foods and Inns Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection of assessee stands allowed

ITA 4577/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘F’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Amarjit Singh, JM ITA No.4577/Mum/2015 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax M/s.Foods and Inns Limited बनाम/ Circle 14(1)(2) Foods & Inns Building Mumbai. Sion Trombay Road, Punjabwadi Vs. Deonar, Mumbai – 400 088. PAN : AAACF0521C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) CO No.87/Mum/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/s.Foods and Inns Limited Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax बनाम/ Foods & Inns Building Circle 14(1)(2) Sion Trombay Road, Punjabwadi Mumbai. Vs. Deo…

Bharat Bijlee Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 383/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia
Section 14ASection 234C

…has not considered the binding decisions of Jurisdictional High Court and other Tribunal orders including those in the Applicant's Civil case. The said MA is pending disposal. . I CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) CITv. HDFC Bank (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) I1DFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom.) f CIT v. Microlabs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar.) \ Mrs, AnahaitaNalin Shah v. ACIT (ITA No. 7115/Mum/2013) (Mum.) In the case of Hind Filters Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 1792 & 417/M/20I3), interest disallowance for A.Y. 2009-10 was deleted In the case of Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. A…

Bharat Bijlee Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 382/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia
Section 14ASection 234C

…has not considered the binding decisions of Jurisdictional High Court and other Tribunal orders including those in the Applicant's Civil case. The said MA is pending disposal. . I CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) CITv. HDFC Bank (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) I1DFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom.) f CIT v. Microlabs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar.) \ Mrs, AnahaitaNalin Shah v. ACIT (ITA No. 7115/Mum/2013) (Mum.) In the case of Hind Filters Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 1792 & 417/M/20I3), interest disallowance for A.Y. 2009-10 was deleted In the case of Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. A…

Nirmal N Kotecha, Mumbai vs. CIT(28), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3700/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3567/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-17(2) Mr. Nirmal N. Kotecha Room No.134, Aayakar Bhavan 601, Sukh Castle, Bhadarkar Road Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Matunga,Mumbai-400 019. Pan:Aezpk 2016 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3700/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 वष" Mr. Nirmal N. Kotecha Vs. Acit-17(2) Mumbai-400 019. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jagdish P. Jangid-Dr Assessee By: Shri Pradeep Kapasi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 27/03/2015,Of The Cit(A)-28,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year. Assessee,An Individual,Filed His Return Of Income On 30/09/2009, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 4. 70Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment,U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 29/12/2011,Determining His Income At Rs. 49.29 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapasi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish P. Jangid-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…llowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules could not have exceeded the amount of Rs. 16.41 lakhs, being exempt dividend income.He referred to the 2 3700&3567/M/15 Nirmal N. Kotecha cases of India Advantage Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 471),HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), Maxopp Investments Ltd.(374 ITR 272) and Everest Canto Cylinders Ltd. (378 ITR 57). 2.4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that assessee had shown dividend income of Rs.16,48,785/-,that he himself had made a disallowance of Rs.10.97 lakhs in the return of income filed by him, that the AO made a disa…

DCIT, Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2009/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…iture- When investments are made from own funds, merely because the assessee had to subsequently borrow the funds for business use, it cannot be said that the borrowed funds have been used for the purposes of investments”. CIT –vs.- HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the finding of fact given by the Tribunal was that the assessee’s own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax-free securities. This factual position was not one that was disputed. Undisputedly, the assessee’s capital, profit reserves, surplus and current acco…