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 367,154 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.

ACIT 3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5900/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR

Section 250

…d as deduction. Further the treatment is also in accordance with CBDT instruction no. 17 dated 26.11.2008 which is binding on the department.This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank (366 ITR 505). Further,this issue was specifically decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench in ITA Nos. 2937 and 2919/Mum/20222 and 5250/Mumb/2024 and also for AY 2017-18 in ITA 2937/MUM/2022 & CO.No.28/Mum/2024 IDBI Bank Ltd. 2919/MUM/2022 dated May 11, 2023. The ld.CIT,DR vide has relied on the assessment order. 7. Respectfully following t…

Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd ( Formerly Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 5299/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)

…ting the amount of disallowance of interest expenses. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT:[2021] 438 ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) Bom there was presumption in the favour of the Assessee that the tax-free investments were made out of interest-free own funds and therefore, no disallowance of interest expenses was warranted even if the provisions of Rule 8D of the IT Rules were applicable. Since the Revenue has failed to bring on record any material to rebut the aforesai…

Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd ( Formerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)

…omputing the amount of disallowance of interest expenses. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT:[2021] 438 ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) Bom there was presumption in the favour of the Assessee that the tax-free investments were made out of interest-free own funds and therefore, no disallowance of interest expenses was warranted even if the provisions of Rule 8D of the IT Rules were applicable. Since the Revenue has failed to bring on record any material to rebut the aforesaid pre…

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

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

ITA 2379/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 14A

…our notice the decision The Ld. AR brought to our notice the decision The Ld. AR brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 wherein it was held that "where assessee's own "where assessee's own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than investment in interest bearing funds were more than investment in interest bearing funds were more than investment in tax free securities, impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer tax free securities, impugned ord…

ACIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2777/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ……………. Appellant Pan: Aaacb 1534 F V/S Acit, 2(1)(1), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1), Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400020. V/S Bank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra ……………. Respondent Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaacb 1534 F

For Appellant: Mr. C. NareshFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…ard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Citibank (Civil Appeal No. 1549 of 2006) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) following these decisions ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12 (in ITA no. 4355/Mum/2016) allowed the claim of the assessee and dismissed the Departmental appeal vide para 6 to 8 of the said order. 17. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent as above, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Re…

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1649/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mr. C. NareshFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2787/CHNY/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2787/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S.Ramco Industries Limited The Acit, Corporate Circle-2, 98A, Auras Corporation Centre, Madurai. Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacr-5284-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anita,Addl.CITFor Respondent: Mr. S.Muralidhar, F.C.A &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ment made by it, the question of making disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) did not arise. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 wherein it was held that "where assessee's own funds and other non- interest bearing funds were more than investment in tax free securities, impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing a part of interest payments under section 14A of the Act (read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962) needs to be set aside". We also note that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai vs. Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3988/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dy. Cit, Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, Vikhroli Parksite 664, C/1-1, Gr. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Floor, Bmc Colony Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aacfj 6244 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Vishwas Mehendale

…so be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C/T v. HDFC Bank Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C/T v. HDFC Bank Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C/T v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505/49 taxmann.com 335/226 Taxman 132 ] 366 ITR 505/49 taxmann.com 335/226 Taxman 132 ] 366 ITR 505/49 taxmann.com 335/226 Taxman 132 (Mag.) (Bom.), wherein the assessee bank was held entitled for (Mag.) (Bom.), wherein the assessee bank was held entitled for (Mag.) (Bom.), wherein the assessee bank was held entitled for deduction with respect to the…

T vs. Motor Company Ltd., Chennaivs.ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

…Rule 8D(2) funds in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) did not arise. The Ld. AR brought to our The Ld. AR brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Co of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of urt in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 wherein it was wherein it was held that "where assessee's own funds and other non "where assessee's own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were interest bearing funds were more than investment in tax free securities, impugned order passed by more than investment in tax free securities, impugned order p…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7 Pune, Pune vs. John Deere India Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 1910/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkune

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…year under consideration. The AO has not rebutted the appellant’s submission that the investment was out of appellant’s own funds and there has been no interest expenditure for this investment as per decision of Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505. Secondly, the appellant has not earned any exempt income during the relevant financial year. It is also seen that the similar issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act has been decided in favour of the appellant by my predecessors in appellant’s own case in AY 2012-13 and in AY 2014-15. The relevant paragraphs of the decision in AY 2014-15 are re…

The Dy CIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphourous Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4099/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…/s United Phosphorous Ltd.) respect of interest expenditure. Further, no disallowance on account of interest was made in the past, in the year in which investment was made. Following decisions were cited in support of this contention. 1. CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 (Bom) 2. HDFC Bank Ltd Vs. DCIT 284 CTR 414 (Bom) 3. CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) 4. ITA No. 4695/Mum/2005, A.Y 1999-20. 7.3 Alternatively it was submitted by the Ld. AR that in respect of assessment years prior to A.Y 2008-09, Rule 8D was not applicable. The AO was required to apply reasonable method in quantifying ex…

ACIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 458/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y. : 2018-19 C.O. No. 99/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2018-19 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 458/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 32

…roposition, the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (Civil Appeal No.10 of 2019) and the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505). 14. The Ld.CIT(A) was convinced with the above said contentions of the assessee. He also took support of the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. His observations in this regard are extracted below:- “5.2. In this regard, that the issue of allocation of interest cost to exempt income has been set…

M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt. Limited, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…pense. In holding so we find support and guidance from the following judgments: P a g e 22 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sl No Case Laws Citation Forum 1 CIT Vs. UTI Bank (2013) 32 Guj.HC Ltd taxmann.com 370 2 CIt Vs. HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 Bom.HC Ltd 3 CIT vs. Micro Labs (2017) 79 Kar.HC Ltd taxmann.com Thus the TDS amount does not represent the tax of the assessee but it is the tax of the party which has been paid by the assessee. Thus any delay in the payment of TDS by the assessee cannot be linked to the income tax of the assessee and consequently the principles laid down by th…

Balaji Fuels, Gurgon vs. Prcit, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 929/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Mahavir Singh & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Balaji Fuels Vs Ito 66, Milestones, Nh 8 Distt. Ward- (3) Gurgaon-122413 New Delhi Pan No.Aajfb5505E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Balaji Fuels Vs Pcit 66, Milestones, Nh 8 Distt. Gurgaon Gurgaon-122413 Pan No.Aajfb5505E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Manoj Kumar, Ca Respondent By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gurgaon-1/11855/2019- 20 Vide Order Dated 13.06.2022 & Order Of Pcit, Gurgaon Dated

Section 143Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…3,82,912/-, the presumption will be that the assessee has advanced these interest free loans out of own funds. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is covered by decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Limited reported in 366 ITR 505 wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court Ltd. held as under :- “5. We find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra). The finding of fact given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the present case is that the assessee’s own funds and other non-interest bearing fun…

Balaji Fuels, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward (3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1829/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit (Cc)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited Cts No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, Vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacf 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

…icient own funds were available to make such investments. In the facts of the case, the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v/s Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) are applicable. In view of the above the addition made by the A.O of Rs. 88,51,124/- is deleted. Accordingly, the grounds are allowed.” 8. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel also submitted that assessing officer has not recorded any satisfaction on the disallowance made by the assessee itself. Further he subm…

DCIT (CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd Q, Mumbai

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3175/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank

ITA/193/2024HC Delhi06 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

…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 appearin…

Akshay Anil Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4021/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Counsel has also referred the decision of Cyquator Media Services Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT vide ITA No. 1209/M/2023 dated 19.07.2023 of ITAT, Mumbai wherein after following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South India Bank Ltd. vs CIT (2021) 438 ITR 001 (SC) held that where assessee’s own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in tax free securities no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. 7. The ld. Counsel also referred the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. Kali Fabrics Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/KOL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…could be made with respect to interest paid which are relatable to interest free loans. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505. Considering these facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the same is affirmed by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 27th November, 2024 (Sonjoy Sarma) Accountant Member Dated: 27th November, 2024 JD, Sr. PS 4…