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 367,164 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.

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Tulsiani Builders & Textiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4315/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Singh & Ms. Apurva ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Nitin Waghmode

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28

…ssessee has failed to prove that the investments in question were made by the assessee from own funds. 3. The Ld. Counsel, on the other hand submitted that this ground is covered by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) as the assessee’s was having capital reserves and surplus of Rs. 10,61,53,315/- as on 31.3.2002, whereas the total investments were worth Rs. 92,18,750/- therefore, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. 4. We notice that assessee did not earn dividend during the year un…

Uni Deritend Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2215/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Uni Deritend Limited, फनाभ/ Dcit-1(3)(2), 3Rd Floor, Liberty Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 020. New Marine Line, Mumbai-020. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacu0028K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d the argument that the AO and the CIT (A) failed to give finding of the fact that the assessee had sufficient interest free funds and also failed to comply with the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and also the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) despite the same were referred by the assessee before the first appellate authority. 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited precedents (supra), we find that the CIT…

West Pioneer Properties (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2010-11

ITA 3105/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Shree Kumar KabraFor Respondent: Shri Subhachan Ram

Section 143(3)

…014 dated 05.01.2016, the Coordinate Bench held in favour of the assessee and deleted the disallowance, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). 9.2.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find from the material on record that the assessee earned exempt income of `8,06,800/- (i.e. dividends from Mutual Funds) and had made a suo moto disallowance of `1,22,932/-. The learned CIT(A) a…

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2139/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 80ASection 80I

…the assessee (Rs.539.51 crore) as on 31.3.2008 is in far excess of the amount of investments (Rs.6.01 crores). Similar is the position in the earlier year also. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505), there is no requirement to make interest disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules. Accordingly we confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 6 M/s. Sterlite Technologies Limited 13. With regard to the expenses, we notice that the assessee has made investment only in its subsidiary companies during the year under considerati…

Smita Conductors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed in favour of assessee

ITA 158/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.158/Mum/2013,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 253Section 254(1)

…ent of account and the balance sheet is also placed on record showing the interest free funds available with the assessee. The ld. and AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of CIT versus reliance utility Ltd 313 ITR 340(Bombay), CIT versus HDFC bank Ltd 366 ITR 505(Bombay) on the ratio that no interest disallows can be made under section 14A of the assessee own sufficient funds to cover up the value of investment. On the decision of DCIT versus REI Agro Ltd (Calcutta), M/s Global Calcium Private Limited in ITA No.2255/Mds/2013 he propound to the ratio that Assessing Officer must record his dissatisfaction b…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. India Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 6574/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cir.6(1), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. India Fashions Ltd., A2/369 Shah & Nahar Indl.Estate, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai 400 013 Pan:Aabci 4292A .... Respondent C.No.68/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6574/Mum/2014, Assessment Year - 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Kardam

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Cir.6(1), Room No.506, 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/s. India Fashions Ltd., A2/369 Shah & Nahar Indl.Estate, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai 400 013 PAN:AABCI 4292A .... Respondent C.NO.68/MUM/2016 (Arising out of ITA NO.6574/MUM/2014, Assessment Year - 2010-11) M/s. India Fashions Ltd., A2/369 Shah & Nahar Indl.Estate, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai 400 013 PAN:AABCI 4292A ...... Cross Objector Vs. DCIT, Cir.6(1), Room No.506, 5th Flo…

Shantivijay Jewels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5215/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

…ssee is in far excess of the amount of Investments and hence disallowance of interest is not required to be made under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules in view of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). 5. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A). 6. Having heard the rival contentions, we find merit in the submissions made by learned AR. Since dividend earned from overseas investments is taxable in India, the same should not have been considered by the Assessing Officer for working…

Abc Bearing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 780/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negithe Dcit, Cir.6(1), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S.Abc Bearing Ltd. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan: Aaact 5018Q .... Respondent M/S.Abc Bearing Ltd. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan: Aaact 5018Q .... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Cir.6(1), Room No.511, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…brings out such details. The aforesaid fact-situation has not been repudiated by the Revenue at any stage and, therefore, following the ratio of (Assessment Year 2009-10) the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom), wherein the principle laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.(supra) has been applied in the context of section 14A of the Act also, the impugned disallowance is not maintainable. Thus, noticing that the interest-free funds availa…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Abc Bearing Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Bhansali Bright Baras P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Acit-5(1), Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 150, Madhav Bhavan, Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcb1544N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Darshak Shah Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 11/01/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…the assessee out of interest free funds, thus, no part of interest on borrowings can be disallowed on the basis that investment were made out of interest bearing funds, supports the case of the assessee. Likewise, Hon’ble High Court in CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom.), took identical view. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, duly considered the decision in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) along with the case of American Express International Banking Corporation vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 601, CIT vs M/s Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now me…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5276/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth

Section 10Section 14A

…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…

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4148/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannuthe Acit-3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt. Ltd., 154/C, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaacb 2156M .... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Mody

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ollowing the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Reliance Utilities And Power Limited., 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Consequently, following the judgments of 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), the interest disallowed in pursuance to Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules has been deleted. Apart there from, the CIT(A) has observed in para – 5.1.6 of his order that the Assessing Officer has not given any justification for rejecting the claim of the assessee that no expenditure was i…

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of

ITA 6795/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anupama Anand, CIT/DR

Section 14A

…ka in Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2013] 356 ITR 549 (Kar.) and the decisions High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 377 (Bom). The ITAT has noted that the above decisions referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) and Southern Technologies Ltd v. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC). 4. However, Mr. Shivpuri, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for th…

Nipra Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2207/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal D. MaruFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain

Section 14A

…. Against the said funds, the investment made is only Rs. 35,77,702/-. Thus, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340; and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd[2014] 366 ITR 505, no disallowance of interest should be made. As regards to the disallowance of indirect expenditure, Ld Counsel submitted that some of the shares were kept as stock-in- trade, which were not for the purpose of investment or for earning of dividend income and therefore same should not be included for the purpose of disallowance and secondly, no re…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is also partly allowed

ITA 2421/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () I.T.A. No.2421/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 4

…tax free securities; in view of the following judgements: No interest disallowance can be made u/s 14A of the Act since own funds are sufficient to cover up the value of investments - CIT v. Reliance Utilities Ltd [313 ITR 340 (Bom)] - CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505 (Bom)] - Alchemic Financial Services v Addl.CIT (ITA No. 6349/Mum/2011) - Paresh K Shah v. Dy.CIT (ITA No. 8214/Mum/2011) 5. With regard to the expenses disallowed @0.5% u/r 8D(2)(iii), it was submitted that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO, therefore, AO wrongly applied the said rule to make the impugned disallowance. It was also submitte…

D.S.P. Merill Lynch Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2361/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.2361/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) DSP Merill Lynch Capital Ltd. Mafatlal Centre, 8th Floor ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AACCD156G v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–3(1), Mumbai ITA no.2600/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(1), Mumbai v/s DSP Merill Lynch Capital Ltd. Mafatlal Centre, 8th Floor ……………. Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAC…

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 401/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 401/Mum./2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) M/S. Rallis India Ltd. C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Building ……………. Appellant 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G. Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aabcr2657N V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–3(3), Mumbai 400 020 आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 489/Mum./2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(3), Mumbai 400 020 V/S M/S. Rallis India Ltd. C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Building ……………. Respondent 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G. Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aabcr2657N निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri M.M. Golvala A/W Shri K. Bulsara रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Jain सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 26.09.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain

Section 4Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘के’ म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री राजेंद्र, ऱेखा सदस्य एवुं श्री शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA no. 401/Mum./2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) M/s. Rallis India Ltd. C/o Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Building ……………. Appellant 3rd Floor, 148, M.G. Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AABCR2657N v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–3(3), Mumbai 400 020 आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA no. 489/Mum./2013 (निर्धारण वष…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 797/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80I

…r direct the A.O. to verify the interest free funds available with the assessee for making investment. As per the verdict of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom), CIT vs. HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs Prakash I Shah (ITA No. 6349/Mum/2011), no disallowance of interest is warranted when assessee is having sufficient own funds for making investment. The A.O. is directed to verify the availability of interest free funds with the assessee for investment. 10. In view of the above, the dis…

Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 390/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80I

Prakash K. Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT City 12/ACIT 12(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2030/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2030/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बनाम/ Shri Prakash K Shah, Commissioner Of Income Tax City - 8-B, Rajabhadur Mansion, 12, Acit 12(1), Vs. 11/43, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400023 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri N R Agrawal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “सी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR,(AM) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2030/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बनाम/ Shri Prakash K Shah, Commissioner of Income Tax City - 8-B, Rajabhadur Mansion, 12, ACIT 12(1), Vs. 11/43, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400023 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN/GIR No. :AAACP8291F अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant by: Shri N R Agrawal प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by Shri Pratap Singh सुनवधई की तधयीख / D…