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.

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1) Now DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1480/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Reliance Infrastructure 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Reliance Energy Centre Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai- 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Reliance Energy Centre 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Santacruz East, Mumbai- Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…1/- u/s 14A of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bombay) by observing in Para 10.3 as under: - “10.3 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The A.O. had disallowed Rs.37,34,41,170/- u/s.14A. This disallowance is for M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. the expenditure related to interest and administrative expenditure. However, when we examine appellant's own funds, the appel…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrstructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1422/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)

M/S. Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3108/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3108/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5336/Mum/2008, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. Addl Cit,Range-3(2) (Formerly Known As Icici Securities Ltd.) Mumbai. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg Vs. Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaaci 0995 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3136/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit,Range-3(2) Vs. M/S.Icici Securities Ltd. (Formerly Known As Icici Securities Ltd.),Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: S/Shri Alok Johari & Arju Goradia-Sr.Dr Assessee By: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Niraj Sheth

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Niraj ShethFor Respondent: S/Shri Alok Johari and Arju Goradia-Sr.DR

Section 254(1)Section 36

…to 2002-03.While dealing with the first ground, we had reproduced paragraph 15-15.4 of the order for the AY. 2002-03.Respectfully following the same, and, considering the judgments of the Hon,ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529 and 366 ITR 505), we decide Ground No. 2 in favour of the assessee. 3108/M/07;5336/08;3136/07 (04-05&05-06) 4.Next ground of appeal is about disallowance of brokerage, stamp duty and custodial charges of Rs.4.28 lakhs.The Authorised Representative (AR) fairly agreed that similar ground was decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in the AY.2002-03(supra).A…

Jm Financial Produts Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessees’ are allowed and that of Revenue’s are partly allowed

ITA 4062/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)

…he cases, whereas deleted the balance disallowance on account of interest made by AO by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and also CIT vs HDFC Bank ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) When it is held that in the case of assessee is able to prove that its own funds are more than the investment made by assessee to earn exempted income, the presumption will be that the same is made out of interest free funds in the absence of any finding by the AO that there is no nexus between interest bearing fund invested in tax free inv…

Jm Financial Investment Managers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessees’ are allowed and that of Revenue’s are partly allowed

ITA 4061/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Value Retail Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3968/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit-9(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Future Value Retail Ltd., Knowledge House, Off Jogeshwari- Vikhroli Link Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai -400 060 Pan: Aaecp 3041P .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RamanFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Haria

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER The DCIT-9(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/s. Future Value Retail Ltd., Knowledge House, Off Jogeshwari- Vikhroli Link Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai -400 060 PAN: AAECP 3041P .... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rahul Raman Respondent by : Ms. Dinkle Haria Date of hearing : 30/03/2017 Date of pronouncement : 31/05/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2011-…

The Zorastrian Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 3028/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Zorastrian Co-Operative The Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax-1, Dr. Annie Besant Road, 387, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Vs. Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaaz0071B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Ved (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…of Income-tax in this regard is incorrect, misconceived, erroneous and not in accordance with law.” 5. The Ld. counsel at the outset submitted that the assessee’s case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 368 ITR 377 (Bom) and the identical issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Court in favour of the assessee. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT submitted that since the assessee had wrongly debited the amount of Rs. 4,68,65,000/…

U.B. Cotton P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3357/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…st paid on borrowed fund was also relatable to interest on investment made in tax free funds. Therefore, interest expenditure relatable to investment in tax free funds was to be computed under provisions of Rule 8D (2)(ii). 3 In CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) it is held that the 2.6 presumption laid down in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 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 securities (notwithstanding the fact that the assessee concerned may also have taken s…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Serums & Vaccines Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3577/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Acit-3(1)(1), Room No.607,6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai - 40020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Bharat Serums & Vaccines Ltd. 17Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 Pan:Aaacb 2431M .... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Beena Santosh/For Respondent: Shri P.P.Bhandari

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…ents are made out of interest free funds. Ld.Representative for the assessee pointed out that such a 6 proposition has also been found applicable in the context of section 14A of the Act by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom) and in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom). For all the above reasons, the decision of the CIT(A) has been sought to be defended. 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Factually speaking, there is no dispute to the fact that during the year under consideration assessee has not received any exempt income a…

Hariyana Ship Breakers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 38, Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2556/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2556/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Hariyana Ship Breakers Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax बनाम/ 156, Maker Chambers Vi Central Circle 38 220, Jamanalal Bajaj Marg, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nariman Point M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-2476-E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Reepal G. Traishawala,Ld. ARFor Respondent: Riju Jaikaran, Ld. DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254

…erest disallowance could be made. There being no direct nexus between borrowed funds and investments, a presumption has to be drawn that the investments were out of owned funds in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Limited [366 ITR 505]. 6. Per contra, Ld. DR placed reliance on the findings of lower authorities and contended that unsecured loans raised by the assessee were increased during the year and the assessee has debited interest 4 Hariyana Ship Breakers Limited Assessment Year-2007-08 expenditure of Rs.6.01 crores as against interest income 1.43 crores and therefore, ri…

Arjav Diamonds (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 7467/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Vs. Acit – 5(1), Mumbai Ltd., 314, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aagca2472D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43Section 43(5)

…Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd., v Dy. CIT being ITA No.8581/Mum/2011 for A.Y.2008-09 dated 24/02/2016. 5. We have deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by learned AR. As per the decision of Reliance Utilities And Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505, no disallowance of interest is 3 Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd., warranted where own funds are sufficient to cover the value of investment. As per the judicial pronouncements by Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest. Ltd., 378 ITR 33, disallowance u/s. 14A should be restricted to exempt income. Recently Bombay High Court in the case of Ballar…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Asian Heart Institute and Research Centre P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6264/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm) I.T.A. No. 6264/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

Section 14A

…tice that the Ld CIT(A) has given finding that the own funds available with the assessee is more than the value of investment. Hence no disallowance is required to be made as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505). Since the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) is in accordance with the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order passed on this issue. 4. The next issue contested by the revenue relates to the deletion of disallowance made out of building repairs expenses by the AO treating them as ca…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. Comm of Income Tax Range-11 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3406/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: S/Shri N.K.Chand &

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 PAN:AAACZ 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent by : S/Shri N.K.Chand & Shahi Sanjay Kumar Date of hearing : 10/02/2017 Date of pronouncement : 05/05/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: The captioned appeal filed…

DCIT CC 3(1) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Wind World Wind Farms (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6836/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…ainst investment in preference shares of ` 9.10 crores the assessee is having own funds of ` 45.71 crores as on 31.3.2012 which is in far excess of the value of investment. Hence, as per the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), there is no requirement to make any disallowance out of interest expenditure. Since the entire investments have been made in the subsidiary company, there is no requirement to make any disallowance out of administrative expenses also as per the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd.(supra). Accordingly,…

D.D. Cotton P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2743/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri SL JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण " जी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2743/MUM/2015, (A.Y : 2011-12) M/s D.D.Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Cir 3(1) 86, Maker Chamber Aayakar Bhavan VI 220, Jamnadas Bajaj Marg 6th Floor, Queens Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN : AAACD4819K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant by : Shri SL Jain प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mittal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/02/2017 घोषणा की तारी…

Sea Linkers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1583/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Assessment Year 2009-10 Sea Linkers Pvt. Ltd. Acit 7(2) B P T Plot No.107, Mumbai Vs. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai – 400 010

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Dr. A K Nayak

Section 14A

…fund of `.10.32 crores. Therefore, no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) • CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) • HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) As far as disallowance of administrative expenditure is concerned, the learned AR relied upon the submissions made before the first appellate authority to contend that since the entire investment activity is routed through Citibank, which does not charge any fees for such activity, there…

Jaguar International Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4371/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…nds only as has been held by various judgments of the Hon'ble High Court as well as various Benches of the Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and HDFC. Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 and that of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of Bright Enterprises In ITA No.224 of 2013 and Kapsons Associates in ITA No. 354 of 2013. 21.5 Further, it is a settled law that assessee is free to use its own funds the way it wants and the Revenue cannot compel the assessee to do or 5 Jaguar International Ltd. perform in a particula…

Krishma Conchem Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2742/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain

Section 145(3)Section 68

…Rules and should be deleted. In support of this submissions the ld.AR strongly placed reliance on the 6 decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT V/s HDFC BANK LTD. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom). So far as the disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, the ld.AR admitted that the same was required to be sustained. 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly objected to the plea put forth by the ld.AR and submitted that the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules were clearly applicable…

Hcc Real Estate Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2209/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Vikrant Rajopadhye/For Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…uch a situation, the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) is applicable and even in the context of Sec.14A of the Act, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom) has held that it is to be presumed that the investments are out of non-interest bearing funds. Be that as it may, in our view, it would be in the fitness of things that the aforesaid aspect is verified by the 9 M/s. HCC Real Estate Ltd. Assessing Officer before straightaway concluding to disallow interest expenditure in terms of Rule 8D(2)…

Mutha Engineering P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2386/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmutha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle-4(2), C/O G.P. Mehta & Co., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cas, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Vs. 212, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aabcm 0781G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 14(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…ing the provisions of Rule 8D. From the Profit & Loss Account, we have noticed that assessee was having sufficient interest free fund available with it. As per the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utility 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 wherein it was held that where both interest free fund and interest bearing fund are available with assessee and interest free funds are more than the investment made, the presumption is that the investment in the tax free security would have been made out of the interest free funds available with the assessee. Thus, respectfully following the or…