CIT v. SBI DHFL Ltd.

376 ITR 296High Court2015#7602 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 68

Judgments citing CIT v. SBI DHFL Ltd.

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

…man 132 (Mag.)366 ITR 505 iii) Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 51 taxmann.com 508/ [2015] 228 Taxman 326/370 ITR 187 (All. HC) 44 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 iv) CIT v. SBI DHFL Ltd. [2015] 63 taxmann.com 345/376 ITR 296 (Bom. HC) v) CIT v. Karnataka State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd. [2016] 65 taxmann.com 295/237 Taxman 240 (Kar HC) vi) Yes Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 14/68 SOT 291 (Mum. ITAT) vii) Asstt. CIT v. Bandekar Brothers (p.) Ltd. [2015] 63 taxmann.com 198/155 ITD 1174 (Panji ITAT) 23 The ratio laid down in the abo…

SUBHKAM VENTRURES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5682/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 14A

…ds and therefore no disallowance could be made under rule 8D2(ii). The Ld. A.R. submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), CIT vs. SBI, DHFL Ltd. (2014) 376 ITR 296 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank vs. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.). The Ld. A.R. therefore prayed that since the assessee’s average investments in the securities yielding exempt income being less than the average own funds, therefore, no disallowance can be made under rule 8D2(ii). The second without prejudice propositions made by the Ld. A.R. is that these…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SUBHKAM VENTRURES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 14A

…ds and therefore no disallowance could be made under rule 8D2(ii). The Ld. A.R. submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), CIT vs. SBI, DHFL Ltd. (2014) 376 ITR 296 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank vs. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.). The Ld. A.R. therefore prayed that since the assessee’s average investments in the securities yielding exempt income being less than the average own funds, therefore, no disallowance can be made under rule 8D2(ii). The second without prejudice propositions made by the Ld. A.R. is that these…

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5390/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 14(1)Section 14ASection 35

…the submission of the appellant. It is seen that there was sufficient capital and reserve at the disposal of the appellant and this fact was not disputed by the AO. But in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SBI DHRL Ltd ( 376 ITR 296) and HDFC Bank Ltd ( 366 ITR 505) it is seen that the Jurisdictional High Court held that if there is sufficient capital and reserve at the disposal of the appellant then presumption can be taken that the investment has been made out of the non interest bearing fund. Therefore, in view of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision, is directe…

ACIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5295/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 14(1)Section 14ASection 35

…the submission of the appellant. It is seen that there was sufficient capital and reserve at the disposal of the appellant and this fact was not disputed by the AO. But in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SBI DHRL Ltd ( 376 ITR 296) and HDFC Bank Ltd ( 366 ITR 505) it is seen that the Jurisdictional High Court held that if there is sufficient capital and reserve at the disposal of the appellant then presumption can be taken that the investment has been made out of the non interest bearing fund. Therefore, in view of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision, is directe…

PHULCHAND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3184/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Neil Phillip
Section 14A

…under Rule–8D(2)(ii) is unsustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); ii) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom.); and iii) CIT v/s SBI DHFL Ltd., [2015] 376 ITR 296 (Bom.). 6. As regards disallowance of administrative expenditure under Rule–8D(2)(iii), the learned Authorised Representative submitted, only those investments yielding exempt income during the year can be included in the average value of investment for computing disallowance under Rule–8D(2)(iii). He submitted, the investment on which the asse…

ACIT CIR 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KREDENCE MULTI TRADING CO., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 780/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, M/S Kredence Multi Trading Circle-6(3)(2), Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.522, 5Th Floor, 530, Nevvyapar Bhavan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, P. Demello Road, Mumbai-400020 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-40009 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacs0778A

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…xempt income. However, the ld. Assessing Officer made the addition. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), 4 Kredence Multi Trading Ltd. the factual matrix was considered and following various decisions in CIT vs SBI DHFL Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 296 (Bom.), ACIT vs Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 155 ITD 1171 and Auchtel Products Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 39 (URO) and various other decisions, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) restricted the disallowance to the exempt income. No interest bearing funds were utilized for the purposes of investment. Considering the aforesaid de…

K.BADAL BAI L/H OF LATE SRI A.KEWALCHAND,GUDIYATHAM vs. ACIT, VELLORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed/ treated as allowed

ITA 1688/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mrs. Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40A(3)

…igh Court concurred with the views of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that there was sufficient interest free funds to make investments and accordingly upheld the deletion of disallowance of interest. The above decision was followed in CIT v SBI DHFL Ltd [2015] 376 ITR 296 (Bombay) and HDFC Bank Ltd v DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 and it was held that in these decisions that no disallowance of interest paid should be made under section 14A under these circumstances. The Gujarat High Court in CIT v UTI Bank Ltd [2013] 32 taxmann.com 370 it was held that if there are sufficient interest free funds to meet tax free inve…

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. APTECH LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2003/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…o interest disallowance is called for as the assessee’s own fund were sufficient to cover the investment in the shares in subsidiary companies by strongly relying on the decision in the case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of SBI DHFL Ltd reported in 376 ITR 296 (Bom) and in the case of CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 383 ITR 529 (Bom). Considering the facts of the case and in the light of the various decisions cited above, we find that the assessee has made investment in the subsidiary companies during the year which is a finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. It is also clear from the cop…

APTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1271/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…o interest disallowance is called for as the assessee’s own fund were sufficient to cover the investment in the shares in subsidiary companies by strongly relying on the decision in the case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of SBI DHFL Ltd reported in 376 ITR 296 (Bom) and in the case of CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 383 ITR 529 (Bom). Considering the facts of the case and in the light of the various decisions cited above, we find that the assessee has made investment in the subsidiary companies during the year which is a finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. It is also clear from the cop…

APTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 946/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…o interest disallowance is called for as the assessee’s own fund were sufficient to cover the investment in the shares in subsidiary companies by strongly relying on the decision in the case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of SBI DHFL Ltd reported in 376 ITR 296 (Bom) and in the case of CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 383 ITR 529 (Bom). Considering the facts of the case and in the light of the various decisions cited above, we find that the assessee has made investment in the subsidiary companies during the year which is a finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. It is also clear from the cop…

APTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 723/MUM/2013[2008--09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…o interest disallowance is called for as the assessee’s own fund were sufficient to cover the investment in the shares in subsidiary companies by strongly relying on the decision in the case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of SBI DHFL Ltd reported in 376 ITR 296 (Bom) and in the case of CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 383 ITR 529 (Bom). Considering the facts of the case and in the light of the various decisions cited above, we find that the assessee has made investment in the subsidiary companies during the year which is a finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. It is also clear from the cop…

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. APATECH LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1228/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…o interest disallowance is called for as the assessee’s own fund were sufficient to cover the investment in the shares in subsidiary companies by strongly relying on the decision in the case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of SBI DHFL Ltd reported in 376 ITR 296 (Bom) and in the case of CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 383 ITR 529 (Bom). Considering the facts of the case and in the light of the various decisions cited above, we find that the assessee has made investment in the subsidiary companies during the year which is a finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. It is also clear from the cop…

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. APATECH LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1227/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…o interest disallowance is called for as the assessee’s own fund were sufficient to cover the investment in the shares in subsidiary companies by strongly relying on the decision in the case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of SBI DHFL Ltd reported in 376 ITR 296 (Bom) and in the case of CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 383 ITR 529 (Bom). Considering the facts of the case and in the light of the various decisions cited above, we find that the assessee has made investment in the subsidiary companies during the year which is a finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. It is also clear from the cop…

LAADKI TRADING & INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5493/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jmand Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o disallowance of interest under rule 8D(ii) is called for as rule 8D was not applicable to current assessment year. The ld. Counsel relied on the decisions of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), CIT Vs. SBI DHFL Ltd. 376 ITR 296 (Bom.),Pr. CIT Vs. India 5 M/s. Laadki Trading & Investments Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. 376 ITR 553 (Guj.) in support of his arguments. The ld Counsel further submitted that the loan funds had substantially decreased during the year from Rs.5,80,06,448/- to Rs.59,63,482/-. As regards the disallowance under rule8D (iii) the l…