How many judgments cite HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT?

408 judgments on BharatTax cite HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (383 ITR 529), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 8D, Section 10(34).

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

383 ITR 529High Court2016#178 most cited

What is HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

408

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 368,155 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT · section 14A · disallowance of interest expenditure · exempt income · interest free funds · Rule 8D · own funds · corporate guarantee · investment

Also reported as

67 Taxmann.com 42

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D Section 10(34)Section 115JB Section 115JB(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115jb(2)corporate guarantee disallowance of interest expenditure disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a most appropriate method interest under section 234b advance tax book profits arm's length price section 115j associated enterprises

Judgments citing HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Garware Polyster Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5757/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhandcit-9(3)(2) M/S Garware Polyster Ltd. 418, 4Th Floor, Garware House, Western Express Aayakar Bhavan, Highway, Vile Parle(East), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacg0571D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Apurv Gandhi (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Apurv Gandhi (AR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…ssee are sufficient to cover the value of investments for this purpose reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncement: 1. CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Ltd [313 ITR 340 (80m)] 2. CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505 (Bom)] 3. HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT [383 ITR 529 (Bom)] 20. For the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act only those investments are to be considered form which exempt income has been received during the year for this purpose reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncement: 1. ACIT Vs. Vireet investment [165 ITD 25 (Del) (SB)] 2. ACB India Vs. ACIT [374 ITR 108 (Del)] 3. CIT vs. Int…

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Kewal Kiran Enterparises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 3905/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dcit-24(3), M/S Kewal Kiran Enterprises, Room No. 701, C-11, B-101/107, Synthofine Estate, 7Th Floor, B.K.C. Bandra (E)), Opp. Virwani Ind. Estate, Mumbai 400051 Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaafk2525L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ayushi Modani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rapre (DR)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40A(2)(b)

…rule 8D(2)(ii) of the rules. The assessee had partner capital amounting to Rs. 10,69,24,341/- whereas the total investment was Rs. 1,50,81,843/-. The Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC bank Ltd versus DCIT (383 ITR 529) Bom., CIT versus HDFC bank (366 ITR 505) Bom, CIT vs. Reliance utilities and power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) Bom and other cases to substantiate his contention. The learned counsel further pointed out that since the AO had applied rule 8D(2)(iii) without recording his dissatisfaction regarding the assessee’s claim, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly restricted…

Indraprastha Sehkari Bank Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3987/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14A

…rve and surplus was Rs. 35.14 crores. In view of this the presumption would lie in favour of the assessee that assessee has made investment out of its own tax free funds. Therefore, following decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd Vs. DCIT 383 ITR 529 we reverse the finding of the lower authorities and direct the Ld AO to delete the disallowance of f 364206/- on account of interest expenses being allegedly paid on pro rata basis relating to earning of tax free interest income of f 15.50 lacs on tax free HUDCO bonds of Rs. 2 crores. In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed. ” 16. Re…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sajjan India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee and revenue for AY 2011-12 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4729/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldcit-8(1)(2) M/S Sajjan India Ltd., Room No. 651, 6Th Floor, Matulya Centre, ‘A’ No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ground Floor, Senapati Bapat Mumbai-20. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaacs6498M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) Respondent By : Shri S.L. Jain (Ca) Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arun KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Jain (CA)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 8D(2)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT-8(1)(2) M/s Sajjan India Ltd., Room No. 651, 6th Floor, Matulya Centre, ‘A’ No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ground Floor, Senapati Bapat Mumbai-20. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400013. PAN: AAACS6498M Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (DR) Respondent by : Shri S.L. Jain (CA) Date of Hearing : 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This…

Welspun Investments & Commercials Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 8(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2782/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Welspun Investments & The Income Tax Officer-8(3)(4), Commercial Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 616, 6Th Floor, 9Th Floor, “B” Wing, Trade World Aayakar Bhavan, Premises, Kamala Mills Compound, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacw8345B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh N. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri C.S. Anjaria (DR)

Section 10(34)Section 143Section 14ASection 234B

…terest free funds of its own, which were more than the investment made, no interest disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) is called for. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of honourable Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bombay). Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of Rs. 20,97,242 made under rule 8D(2)(ii). So far as disallowance made by the AO under rule: 8D(2)(.iii) in respect of administrative and other expenses is concerned, the appellant has stated that except for the demat charges of Rs. 39,462, it is not incurred any direct expendi…

M/S Goel Zenith Agro (P) Ltd, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 82/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A. MalooFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)

…form of Share Capital and Reserves and Surplus is much more than the investment held by the assessee. On the issue of availability of free funds being more than investment, we find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Vs. DCIT reported in (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) has observed as under : 6 “15. It is clear that for the first time in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (Supra) that this Court took a view that the presumption which has been laid down in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (Supra) with regard to investment in tax free securities coming out of assessee’s own funds in case the same are in excess of…

M/S Shree Nakoda Industries Ltd, Raipur vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 81/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A. MalooFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…form of Share Capital and Reserves and Surplus is much more than the investment held by the assessee. On the issue of availability of free funds being more than investment, we find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Vs. DCIT reported in (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) has observed as under : “15. It is clear that for the first time in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (Supra) that this Court took a view that the presumption which has been laid down in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (Supra) with regard to investment in tax 6 free securities coming out of assessee’s own funds in case the same are in excess o…

DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Britannia Industries Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1392/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 92B

…very relevant. In this judgment the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court had benefit of considering the earlier judgment of the same court in the case of Dhauka & Sons (339 ITR 319) as also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529). In the case of Rasoi Ltd (supra), the High Court found that assessee’s own funds were higher than the investments in tax free securities and in that view of the matter, the interest disallowance made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) which was deleted by the ITAT was upheld by the Calcutta High Court. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Calcut…

DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Britannia Industries Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1391/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 92B

DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Britannia Industries Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1390/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 92B

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. D.D. Cotton P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit-3(1)(1), M/S D.D. Cotton Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Bhavan, 903, Tulsiyani Chamber, Mumbai - 400020 212 Backway Reclamation Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacd4819K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 258/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2922/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S D.D. Cotton Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-3(1)(1), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Associates Room No. 601, Aayakar Bhavan, Llp, Chartered Accountants, Mumbai - 400020 12 Engineering Building, Vs. 265 Princes Street, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacd4819K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri E. Sridhar (Cit Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.L. Jain (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri E. Sridhar (CIT DR)

Section 143Section 14ASection 43Section 73

…identical ground of appeal to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The contention of assessee before the Tribunal was that in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505 and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. CIT 383 ITR 529, no disallowance under rule 8D(2) (ii), is required to be made where the own funds of the assessee are more than the investments made during the relevant year. In respect of disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii), the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ABC India Ltd. vs. ACIT, 374 ITR 108 and Cheminvestment…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Infrastructure Finance Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3636/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bled.C.I.T Circle – 14(2)(1) V. M/S. L&T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, 3B Laxmi Towers, “G" Block, Plot No. C-25, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcl 2283 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri S.C. Tiwari

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari

Section 14ASection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D.C.I.T Circle – 14(2)(1) v. M/s. L&T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd Room No. 432, 4th Floor, 3B Laxmi Towers, “G" Block, Plot No. C-25, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AABCL 2283 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri S.C. Tiwari Date of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT : 394 ITR 449 (SC) • • HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT: 366 ITR 505 (Bom) HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT: 383 ITR 529 (Bom) • • CIT v. K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd: ITA No. 1260 of 2009 (Bom.) • Bright enterprises Pvt Ltd. v. CIT: 381 ITR 107 (P&H) • CIT v. Max India Ltd: 388 ITR 81 (P&H) 60 • Gurdas Garg v. CIT: ITA No.413 of 2014 (P&H) • CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. : 383 ITR 490 (Kar.) • PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. : TA No.268 of 2017/82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.…

Shailesh Nagindas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 6165/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6165/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shailesh Nagindas Ito 16(1)(3), Shah 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, 604B, Chandanbala R.R Tardeo Road, V. Thakkar Marg, Walkeshwar Mumbai-400007 Mumbai 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagps5379A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra S. Sanghavi Revenue By : Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6165/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.07.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11 Which Appellate Order Was Later Rectified By Learned Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 30-09-2016, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2012 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 2010-11. I.T.A. No.6165/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra S. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ble with the assessee in addition to own capital. The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) as well as decision in the case of and HDFC Bank Limited v. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) , while on the other hand the Ld. DR relied upon the order of authorities below. 15. We have considered rival contentions and have perused the material on record including cited case laws . We have observed that the assessee has borrowed interest bearing funds on which interest payment of Rs. 59.57 lacs were made during the relevant year u…

Spaco Technologies (India) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 246/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodms. Spaco Technologies Dcit, Circle 5(3)(2) (India) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan 901, Prasad Chambers Vs. M.K. Road Opera House Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400004 Pan – Aabcs5307E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.C. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya

Section 14A

…terest free funds and hence no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules is called for. In this regard the learned CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. 383 ITR 529. Accordingly he deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of I T Rules. The disallowance of `1,26,000/- made by the assessee was considered by Ld CIT(A) as disallowance of direct expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(i) of the I.T. Rules. With regard to disallowance of administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of th…

Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5842/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kotak Mahindra The Addl. Commissioner Of Investments Ltd. 27 Bkc, C- Vs. Income Tax Range 3(2) 27 G Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- Complex Bandra(E), 400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaach1075K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farrokh Irani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Farrokh Irani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kotak Mahindra The Addl. Commissioner of Investments Ltd. 27 BKC, C- Vs. Income Tax Range 3(2) 27 G Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- Complex Bandra(E), 400020. Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAACH1075K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Farrokh Irani, AR Revenue by : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 29/08/2018 Date of pronouncement : 28/09/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevan…

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Saraswat Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 6396/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

…d A.R submitted that the own funds/interest free funds available with the assessee is more than the value of investments and hence the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance utilities and powers Ltd (313 ITR 340) HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529) would be applicable to the facts of the assessee. He submitted that the co-ordinate bench has restored an identical issue in the assessee’s own case in AY 2008-09 (ITA No.1140/Mum/2012 & others dated 11-08-2016) to the file of the AO. 5. We heard Ld D.R on this issue and perused the record. Since the assessee is claiming that the own funds/inte…

DCIT, Cir-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Vineetaz Exports Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 978/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-10(2), Kolkata…………………………….……..Appellant Vs. M/S. Vineetaz Exports Pvt. Ltd……………………………………........……….......……….…..………...Respondent 24/25, Moulana Abul Kalam Azad Road 41/A, Ajc Bose Road 2Nd Floor Room No. 206 Howrah – 711 101 [Pan : Aaacv 8640 E] Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 16Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 7Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4 Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 22/02/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Textiles & Machinery Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2011, Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,77,45,540/-, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer Passed An Order U/S 143(3) On 10/03/2014, Determining The Total Income At Rs.6,30,05,406/-, Interalia Disallowing The Claim Of Expenditure Of Commission Paid To Foreign Agents For Exports, Ad-Hoc Disallowance Of 20% Of The Salary Paid To Employees U/S 40A(2), Disallowance Entertainment Expenditure & Expenditure Incurred On Foreign Tours, Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Etc. Aggrieved, The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Granted Part Relief.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

…ng funds were utilized for investments. This factual analysis could not be controverted by the ld. D/R. This decision of the ld. CIT(A) is in line with the propositions of law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bombay). 11.2. Hence, we find no infirmity in this order of the ld. CIT(A), we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the revenue. 12. Ground No.8, is directed against the deletion of disallowance of PF & ESI payments. 12.1. Admittedly, these amounts were paid before the due date of filing of the return. The ld. CIT(A) delete the disallowanc…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…he audited financial statements and accordingly, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) (Bom.), CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom) and CIT v. Micro labs Limited (ITA No. 471 of 2015) (Kar). Finally, the Ld. counsel submits that the AO has to examine the computation made by the assessee and only if, on an objective satisfaction recorded by the AO with regard to the correctness of the workings, the AO can proceed to apply provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B