HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Futura Value Retail Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit-9(3)(2), M/S. Future Value 418, 4Th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, V. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaecp3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 6705/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Ita No. Cit(A)/ I.T.305/Dcit-9(3)(2)/2015-16, For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016

…ot relatable to such investments. Such presumption has also been held to be applicable in the context of section 14A of the Act by 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). Therefore, under these circumstances, we affirm the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act out of the interest expenditure. Thus, on this aspect also, Revenue fails.” 14. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We ha…

DCIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Metform Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Metform Corporation, Tax -32(2), 601-602, Siddharth Arcace, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Factory Lane, L.T. Road, Room No. 308, C-10, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Borivali (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400092 Bandra (East), Pan: Aaafm9883D Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2019

…support of the decision of CIT V/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) CIT V/s Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom), CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014), 366 ITR 505 (Bom) which affirmed by CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) (SC). In view of the above findings, we find that the order of the ld. FAA does not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise and therefore do not require any interference at our end. Accusingly ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 17. Since, the facts and the issue involved in the present case is identical to the facts and the i…

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G.S. Pannu & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.4280/Mum/2013 I.T.A. No.5121/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) In the matter of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Additional Commissioner of 3rd taxation section floor, Bharat Income Tax, Range-2(1), Bhavan-II, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Rd. Mumbai Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AAACB2902M (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee by : Shri. J.D. Mistry Revenue by : Shri. H.N. Singh : 28.6.2019 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 28.…

Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…us, he submitted, the disallowance of interest expenditure 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…

ACIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Associated Hospitality Ltd Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ए’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI Before Shri MAHAVIR SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2013-14 DCIT-12(1)(1), M/s Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AAFCA7847P Shri Anadi Varma CIT-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Rajesh S. Shah 20/02/2019 सुनव…

Piramal Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodpiramal Healthcare Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Known As Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax- 7(1) Piramal Tower, Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013

…g shares, therefore, no disallowance under Sec.14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for in its hands. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of (i) HDFC Bank Ltd Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom); (ii) CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom); and (iii) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom). In sum and substance, it was the contention of the ld. A.R that as the assessee had sufficient interest free funds which would explain the source of the investments in the exempt income yielding assets, thus no d…

Philip Capital (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanphilip Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle 4(2) (Formerly Known As Mf Room No. 669, Global Sify Securities India Aayakar Bhavan Private Limited) No. 1, 18Th M.K. Road, Floor, Urmi Estate, 95 Vs. Mumbai – 20 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

…r making the investments in the exempt income yielding shares, no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could have validly been made. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). As regards the disallowance made by the A.O under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii), we are in agreement with the contention advanced by the Ld. A.R that for the purpose of working out the „average of the value of investments‟ for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) only those investments which had yielded tax free income during t…

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Express Newspapaers (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, Circle-3(2)(1), M/S Indian Express Newspaper R.No. 608, Aayakar Bhavan, (Mumbai) P. Ltd., Express M.K. Road, Tower, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Vs. Pan: Aaaci2555F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Respondent By : Shri V. Mohan (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

…the investment made by the assessee during the relevant financial year as recorded in para 3.1 of his order. 3 ITA No. 2536 Mum 2018-M/s Indian Express Newspaper (Mumbai) P. Ltd. The assessee also relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529 Bom) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (313 ITR 340 Bom) on the ratio of law that if the reserve funds are in far excess of the investment, the assumption is that the investments are made out of own funds and no borrowed funds are utilized. The ld. CIT(A), deleted the interest disallowance of Rs. 54,34,825/- by following the decision of Trib…

ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai vs. J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…r attention to the Balance Sheet as at 31st March 2009, a copy of which is placed at Page–46 of the paper book. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); and ii) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom.). 12. As regards disallowance of administrative expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii), the learned Authorised Representative submitted, these are old investments, hence, the assessee does not have to incur any administrative expenditure with regard to such investment. 13. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of…

Patan Solar Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Patan Solar Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit-13(1)(2), Mumbai 602, Western Edge-I, Aayakarbhavan, M.K.Road Vs. Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020 Borivali (West), Mumbai- 400092. Pan No. Aafcp6744A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal & Mr. Tanmaypadhke,Ars Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2019

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Patan Solar Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT-13(1)(2), Mumbai 602, Western Edge-I, AayakarBhavan, M.K.Road Vs. Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020 Borivali (West), Mumbai- 400092. PAN No. AAFCP6744A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal & Mr. TanmayPadhke,ARs Revenue by : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR Date of Hearing : 03/04/2019 Date of pronouncement: 09/04/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relev…

Yuvak Ventrures Private Limited (Successors to Aikone Marketing and Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Yuvak Ventures Pvt. Ltd., (As Successors To Aikone Marketing & Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,) 405/408, B ……………. Appellant Wing, Navbharat Estate Zakaria Bunder Road Sewree, Mumbai – 400 015 Pan No:Aagca6159B V/S

…Proposition : No disallowance towards interest can he made in cases where the own funds are higher than the tax free investments  CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom.)  CIT v. HDFC Bank (366 ITR 505) (Bom )  HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom.)  CIT v. Microlabs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar.)  Mrs. Anahaita Nalin Shah v. ACIT (ITA No. 71 1 5/Mum/20l 3) (Mum.)  Hind Filters Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 1792 & 417/M/20I3) (Mum.)  Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT (ITA No. S63/M/201 3) (Mum.)  Dena Bank v. DCIT (ITA No. 3676 & 4 II 3/M/201 2) Proposition : Only those inv…