CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Hongkong & Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7336/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2004-05) & ITA No.4765/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2005-06) The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior Vice President Tax, India Area Management 5th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, 52/60, MG Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) Vs. The Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai 1st Flo

…securities and bonds of the assessee which had yielded exempt income. Hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505, there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest on borrowed funds u/s.14A of the Act. However, certain administrative expenses certainly need to be disallowed u/s.14A of the Act as the law has been amended with retrospective amendment from 01/04/1962 onwards. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT…

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

…securities and bonds of the assessee which had yielded exempt income. Hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505, there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest on borrowed funds u/s.14A of the Act. However, certain administrative expenses certainly need to be disallowed u/s.14A of the Act as the law has been amended with retrospective amendment from 01/04/1962 onwards. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT…

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

…Page 1 ITA No.3952/Mum/2015 & 971/Mum/2020, ITA No.7900/Mum/2019 ACIT, CC 6(4) Vs. M/s Arshiya Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3952/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2011-12) Vs. M/s Arshiya Ltd. ACIT, CC-6(4) R. No. 32(1), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400 020 308, Level 3, Ceejay House, F Block Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACI2679A Appellant Respondent ITA No. 971/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14) DCIT, CC-6(4) R. No. 1925, 19th Floor,…

M/S Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 32(1), 308, Level 3, Ceejay Ground Floor, Aayakar House, F Block Shiv Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 020 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 308, Level 3, Ceejay Air India Building, House, F Block Shiv Nariman Point, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 021 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(4) 308, Level 3, Ceejay R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, House, F Block Shiv Sagar Air India Building, Estate, Dr. A.B. Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai -400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.3952/Mum/2015 & 971/Mum/2020, ACIT, CC 6(4) Vs. M/s Arshiya Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, CC-6(4) Vs. M/s Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 32(1), 308, Level 3, Ceejay Ground Floor, Aayakar House, F Block Shiv Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 020 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACI2679A Appellant .. Respondent DCIT, CC-6(4) Vs. M/s Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 1925, 19th Floor, 308, Level 3, Ceejay Air India Building, House, F Block Shiv…

Asst. CIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Consultants Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal are dismissed

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

…year. Reliance is also placed on following judgments  Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd in 288 Taxman 384 (Del).  Delhi International Airport Private Limited (2022) in 144 taxmann.com 80 (Del.)  Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High court in HDFC Bank Limited in 366 ITR 505. c) xx xx d) In view of above discussion the amount of investments to be considered for disallowances u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D works out to Rs.43,47,41,271/- and not Rs.1,59,53,65,244/- as calculated by the AO. Even for the sake of argument the disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) will work out to 1% of average of monthly Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 20…

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Consultants Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: or at the time of hearing. 4. The relevant facts in brief are that Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of financial services. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on 19/10/2018 declaring total income of INR 49,21,70,290/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act vide order, dated 09/04/2021, after making, in

…year. Reliance is also placed on following judgments  Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd in 288 Taxman 384 (Del).  Delhi International Airport Private Limited (2022) in 144 taxmann.com 80 (Del.)  Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High court in HDFC Bank Limited in 366 ITR 505. c) xx xx d) In view of above discussion the amount of investments to be considered for disallowances u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D works out to Rs.43,47,41,271/- and not Rs.1,59,53,65,244/- as calculated by the AO. Even for the sake of argument the disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) will work out to 1% of average of monthly Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 20…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

…ly, he held no disallowance out of interest expenses is called for. 24.1 We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the view taken by Ld CIT(A) gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505)(Bom). The jurisdictional Bombay High Court has held in the above said case that the interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) of I T Rules is not called for when the own funds available with the assessee is in excess of the value of investments. In our Page No.| 31 ITA NO.4236 & 4372/MUM/2005 (A.Y: 2001-02) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited view, the ratio of…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

…ly, he held no disallowance out of interest expenses is called for. 24.1 We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the view taken by Ld CIT(A) gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505)(Bom). The jurisdictional Bombay High Court has held in the above said case that the interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) of I T Rules is not called for when the own funds available with the assessee is in excess of the value of investments. In our Page No.| 31 ITA NO.4236 & 4372/MUM/2005 (A.Y: 2001-02) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited view, the ratio of…

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…claim of the assessee of availability of sufficient 'interest-free funds' to cover the investment made, following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional 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 (bom). 6.10 Regarding disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rules, the Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of third member of the Tribunal bench in the case of DH securities Private Limited reported in 41 taxmann.com 352 and upheld the disallowance of ₹ 22,57,50, 010/-being 0.5% of the average value of the investments. The relevant finding of t…

ACIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Acit-2(2)(2), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Yes Bank Ltd., 15Th Floor, Yes Bank Tower, Ifc 2, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

…claim of the assessee of availability of sufficient 'interest-free funds' to cover the investment made, following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional 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 (bom). 6.10 Regarding disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rules, the Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of third member of the Tribunal bench in the case of DH securities Private Limited reported in 41 taxmann.com 352 and upheld the disallowance of ₹ 22,57,50, 010/-being 0.5% of the average value of the investments. The relevant finding of t…

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…3.87 crores and Rs. 724.07 crores. Since the own funds available with the assessee was more than the value of the investments, disallowance out of interest expenditure is not called for as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505. Accordingly, it was contended that the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee out of interest expenditure, being contrary to the binding decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, is 8 M/s. Lupin Limited Asst. year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 liable to be excluded. We agree with the above said contentions of the assessee. When the own…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…ature. Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. Disallowance of Broken period interest on securities – Ground No.2 26. The AR argued that the issues is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505 (Bom. HC)] has considered the similar issue and held that no substantial question of law arises in this regard. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 5672 & 5660/Mum/2017 dated 16.07.2021) has considered the same issue where it is held that “19. We have given a t…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…ature. Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. Disallowance of Broken period interest on securities – Ground No.2 26. The AR argued that the issues is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505 (Bom. HC)] has considered the similar issue and held that no substantial question of law arises in this regard. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 5672 & 5660/Mum/2017 dated 16.07.2021) has considered the same issue where it is held that “19. We have given a t…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…ature. Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. Disallowance of Broken period interest on securities – Ground No.2 26. The AR argued that the issues is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505 (Bom. HC)] has considered the similar issue and held that no substantial question of law arises in this regard. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 5672 & 5660/Mum/2017 dated 16.07.2021) has considered the same issue where it is held that “19. We have given a t…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…ature. Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. Disallowance of Broken period interest on securities – Ground No.2 26. The AR argued that the issues is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505 (Bom. HC)] has considered the similar issue and held that no substantial question of law arises in this regard. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 5672 & 5660/Mum/2017 dated 16.07.2021) has considered the same issue where it is held that “19. We have given a t…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…ature. Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. Disallowance of Broken period interest on securities – Ground No.2 26. The AR argued that the issues is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505 (Bom. HC)] has considered the similar issue and held that no substantial question of law arises in this regard. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 5672 & 5660/Mum/2017 dated 16.07.2021) has considered the same issue where it is held that “19. We have given a t…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…ature. Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. Disallowance of Broken period interest on securities – Ground No.2 26. The AR argued that the issues is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505 (Bom. HC)] has considered the similar issue and held that no substantial question of law arises in this regard. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 5672 & 5660/Mum/2017 dated 16.07.2021) has considered the same issue where it is held that “19. We have given a t…

DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

…sufficient to meet the investments made it can be presumed that the investments were made from interest free funds as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai Vs. HDFC Bank Limited: [2016] 366 ITR 505 & Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.: [2009] 313 ITR 340. Further, only investment yielding exempt dividend income are to be considered for the purpose of computing the amount of disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Act. C. It was also submitted that there was no nexus between the exempt income earned and interest…

Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: us. 2.

…sufficient to meet the investments made it can be presumed that the investments were made from interest free funds as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai Vs. HDFC Bank Limited: [2016] 366 ITR 505 & Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.: [2009] 313 ITR 340. Further, only investment yielding exempt dividend income are to be considered for the purpose of computing the amount of disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Act. c. It was also submitted that there was no nexus between the exempt income earned and interes…

ACIT - 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharygodrej Properties Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(2) M/S Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 455, 4 Th Floor, Mistry Llp, Esplanade Aayakar Bhavan, House, 2Nd Floor, 29, M.K. Road, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 For, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg3995M Appellant .. Respondent Acit-14(1)(2) Vs. Godrej Properties Ltd, Room No. 455, 4 Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Godrej One, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Pirojshanagar, Estern Road, Mumbai – 400020 Express Highway, Vikroli (E) Mumbai – 400079 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacg3995M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Yasmin Dastur Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 28.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2024

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.2994 & 3002/Mum/2023 Godrej Properties Ltd Vs. The DCIT, Circle 14(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Godrej Properties Ltd. Vs. The DCIT, Circle 14(1)(2) M/s Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 455, 4 th Floor, Mistry LLP, Esplanade Aayakar Bhavan, House, 2nd Floor, 29, M.K. Road, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 For, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACG3995M Appellant .. Respondent ACIT-14(1)(2) Vs. Godrej Properties Ltd, Room No. 455, 4 th Floor, 5th Floor, Go…