CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

S. Mansukhlal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Soods. Mansukhlal & Co., फनाभ/ Dcit, Range 14(2), Earnest House, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai-02. Ruia Building, 395, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aahfs9459A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, Dr

…ncome out of its own surplus funds unless contrary is brought on record by the AO keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom. HC), HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (2016) 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom). In our considered opinion, this addition of Rs. 9,12,886/- made by the AO and sustained by the Ld CIT (A) u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) of the 1962 Rules is not sustainable in law keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and is hereby ordered to be deleted. We order acc…

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

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Rallis India Ltd., Vs. Acit – 3(3), Mumbai – 400 C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 020 Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G.Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcr2657N Appellant) .. Respondent)

…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…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

…making investment in tax free securities and it was contended that since investment was out of assessee’s own interest free funds, in terms of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505, no disallowance of interest is warranted. With regard to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) he contended that assessee itself has offered the amount attributable for earning the exempt income, therefore, further disallowance made by Revenue authorities was not justified. 28. Learned AR also invited our attention to the order of the Trib…

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8540/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle-10(3) Acrolab Limited], Mumbai बिधम/ 201 Devarata, Vs. Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs8104P (Appellant) : ( Respondent)

…nvestment made in tax free securities, therein no disallowance of interest under Section 14A would be called for in its hands, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the following cases:- (i) CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) (ii) HDFC Bank Ltd., Mumbai Vs. DCIT-2(3), Mumbai (CWP no. 1753 of 2016- A.Y 2008-09, dated 25.02.2016). It was further submitted by the Ld. A.R that the A.O while framing assessment under Sec. 143(3) in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2004-05, had not carried out any disallowance under Section 14A, and to support his aforesaid content…

Safe Clearing & Forwarding P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed partly

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…his own fund as well as borrowed funds, a presumption can be made that the advances for non-business purposes have been made out of the own funds and that the borrowed funds have not been used for this purpose. In view of the law settled in HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 505 (Bombay), it is specifically held that where the assessee have own funds more than the investment then it would assume that the assessee has made the investment from his own fund and he did not utilise the borrowed funds in the investment in the tax free securities. Moreover, it also came into the notice that the assessee did not claim any expend…

Mafatlal Fabrics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…92,93,700/- which was less than the available non interest free funds. Therefore, in the said circumstances no disallowance is required u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D of the Act in view of the law settled in Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case titled as HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 505 (Bombay) and in case titled as CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 340. However, on the other hand the learned departmental representative has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. By giving the careful thoughts to the arguments advanced by Ld representative of the parties and by going through the relevant record careful…

Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3349/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Hi-Tech Engineers, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 26, Jansukh Niwas, 25(3)(2), V. Kasturba Road, Mumbai. Kandivali (West), Mumbai – 400 067. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafh3990C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…king investments in shares from where the exempt income was earned. The assessee relied on decision’s of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Limited(supra) and CIT v HDFC Bank Limited in ITA No. 330 of 2012 reported in (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom. HC) to contend that no disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 22,687/- u/r 8D(2)(ii) of 1962 Rules r.w.s 14A of 1961 could be sustained. ITA 3349/Mum/2016 11 12. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of the authorities below 13. We have considered rival contentions and also perused the material available on record including case laws cited…

Angular Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.5091/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण व आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण व िनधा"रण वष"ष"ष"ष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण व M/S. Angular Trading P.Ltd. Dcit-3(1) 111, Maker Bhavan, No.3,21, New Mumbai. Vs. Marine Lines,Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aacca 8291 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.5191/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" Dcit-3(1) M/S. Angular Trading P.Ltd. Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai-20. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated Of The Cit(A)-Ii,Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year(Ay.) Assessee- Company,Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Investment In Shares & Ipo Funding,Filed Its Return On 28.09.2008,Declaring Income Of Rs.4.58 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 30/12/2010 Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs.6.71 Crores.

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ” ” ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संजय गग" ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No.5091/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण व आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण व िनधा"रण वष"ष"ष"ष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण व M/s. Angular Trading P.Ltd. DCIT-3(1) 111, Maker Bhavan, No.3,21, New Mumbai. Vs. Marine Lines,Mumbai-400 020. PAN: AACCA 8291 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""…

Jayant R. Pardiwala, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhjayant R Pardiwala, 219, High Tech Acit, 24(1), Prayatyksh Kar Industrial Centre, Caves Road, Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Jogeshwari(E), Mumbai-400060. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapp4718N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ITA No.3033/M/2016 Jayant R Pardiwala IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Jayant R Pardiwala, 219, High Tech ACIT, 24(1), Prayatyksh Kar Industrial Centre, Caves Road, Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Jogeshwari(E), Mumbai-400060. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAAPP4718N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K. Shivram Sr Advocate : with Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav Advocate Revenue by : Sh. B.C. S.Nayak- CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 23.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PA…

Apcotex Industries Ltd., Raigad vs. DCIT (OSD) - 10(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Garg

…estments were made out of free reserves of the company and hence no disallowances is warranted on account of interest u/s 14A. The appellant company places reliance on the judgment rendered by Jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of HDFC Bank Ltd, 366 ITR 505 and Reliance Utilities& Power Ltd, 313 ITR 340 (Bom), where in it has been held that; Apcotex Industries Ltd. ITA no.3031/Mum./2016 "the presumption needs to be drawn that interest free funds have been utilized for the purpose of investments and therefore there could not have been any disallowance. "where own funds are more than the invested fun…

Videocon Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Videcon Industries The Deputy Commissioner Ltd.,171-C, Mittal Court, of Income Tax, Range Vs. Nariman Point, 3(3)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021 M.K. Road, PAN: AABCV4012H Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Arvind Sonde, A.R. Revenue by : Shri N.K. Chand, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 24.02.2017 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal has b…

Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…d units of growth funds) of ` 176/- crores. Learned AR submitted that there is no requirement to make any disallowance under these set of facts in view of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). Learned AR submitted that the assessee has worked out the expenditure relatable to the exempt income in a scientific manner by properly allocating expenses relating to exempt income. He submitted that the Assessing Officer did not examine the workings made by the assessee and also did not record any dissatisfaction thereon. He submitted that th…

K Girdharilal International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

…interest free funds available with it, hence, no interest disallowance was warranted. To substantiate his submission, the ld. AR of assessee relied upon the decision of CIT Vs Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The ld. AR of assessee further submitted that the similar disallowance was made for AY 2008-09. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to complete the disallowance by only net interest against the interest expenses. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide or…

Sterlite Technologies Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Sterlite Technologies Acit,(L.T.U.), Limited, 29Th Centre No. 1, बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Godrej Millennium World Trade Centre, Vs. 9, Koregaon Road, Pune, Cuffe Parade, Maharashtra-411001, Mumba-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaecs8719B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.V. Jhaveri Shri B.S. Bist-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2017 16/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sterlite Technologies ACIT,(L.T.U.), Limited, 29th Centre No. 1, बनाम/ 4th Floor, Godrej Millennium World Trade Centre, Vs. 9, Koregaon Road, Pune, Cuffe Parade, Maharashtra-411001, Mumba-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAECS8719B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri B.V. Jhaveri Shri B.S. Bist-DR राज"व क"…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Oil Exploration, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

…vailable with the assessee is in excess of the value of investments and hence there is no requirement to make disallowance out of interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) as per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505). He further submitted that the aggregate amount of administrative expenditure incurred by the assessee was Rs.53.84 lakhs only and hence Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot also be applied. 14. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we are of the view that this issue also requires examination afresh at…

Aarti Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No. 6783-84/Mum/2014,िनधा" रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 आयकर िनधा"रण आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा" िनधा" रण रण वष" वष" Aarti Drugs Limited Addl. Cit, Range-6(1) Plot No.109, ‘D’ 3Rd Floor, Mahendra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Vs. Indl Estate.Sion(E), Mumbai-400 022. Pan: Aaaca 4410 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10 .02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

…h the assessee for the year under appeal amounted to Rs.1, 41, 09, 15, 920/-and that assessee had made investment of Rs. 21.37crores, that it had earned exempt income of Rs.50,944/-. He relied upon the cases of Reliance Utilities Ltd(313ITR340),HDFC Bank Ltd.(366 ITR 505) Joint Investments(372 ITR 694)ACB India(374 ITR 108) Cheminvest Ltd. (378 ITR 33).The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 2.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that during the year under consideration the assessee had claimed exemption of Rs.50,944/-u/s.10 (34) of the Ac…

DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai vs. Vvf Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. 3137/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

…which were for specific purposes and prayed before us that in view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and the decision in the case of CIT V/s HDFC BANK LTD. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom), the deletion of disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) Rs.1,38,73,150/- was rightly made by the FAA and should be upheld in view of the facts of the case and ratio laid down in the above decisions. In our opinion the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view as per law and no interference is called for from our side. Therefore, we uphold the order of…

DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

…fore us now claimed that no interest expenses to be allocated as the investment is made out of assessee’s own funds. For this, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 314 (Bom.). It was contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the entire interest expenses are to be allowed as expenses and no interest expenses to be allocated as the investment is made out of assessee’s own funds. She referred to the Tribunal’s decision…

Icici Bank Ltd vs. DCIT Range 3(1)

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

…fore us now claimed that no interest expenses to be allocated as the investment is made out of assessee’s own funds. For this, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 314 (Bom.). It was contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the entire interest expenses are to be allowed as expenses and no interest expenses to be allocated as the investment is made out of assessee’s own funds. She referred to the Tribunal’s decision…