HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

Tata Motors Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, for

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…of 8 Tata Motors the Act, has been considered by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 in ITA No.630/Mum/2012 and after considering relevant facts and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs CIT 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd vs CIT 318 ITR 340 (Bom) held that when own funds in the form of share capital and reserves is in excess of amount invested in shares and securities which yielded exempt income, then no disallowance can be made towards interest expenditure u/s 14A of the Act. The relevant portion of the order is extracted…

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…elded dividend income during the relevant previous year should be considered for computing disallowance. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– 28 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. i) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.); iv) ACB India Ltd. v/s ACIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del.); v) ACIT v/s Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 83 ITR 103; vi) M/s. Toshvin Analytical Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.3089/ Mum./2013 (Mum.); vii) Sylvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA…

ACIT Cir 1, Thane vs. Emco Ltd, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…nces. The reliance is placed on decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom. HC) as well as decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT reported in (2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom) . Thus under these circumstances , we are of the considered view that no disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D2(ii) can be made of the interest expenditure as is contemplated by the AO. However the facts available on records does not reflect the availability of own funds as at the beginning of the previous year as at 01-04-2010 as also at the end…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…tment made by the assessee, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340)(Bom.), CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank Ltd.(2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Ms. Arju Garodia, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the factual matrix needs to be examined at the level of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above submissions,…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…tment made by the assessee, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340)(Bom.), CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank Ltd.(2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Ms. Arju Garodia, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the factual matrix needs to be examined at the level of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above submissions,…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…tment made by the assessee, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340)(Bom.), CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank Ltd.(2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Ms. Arju Garodia, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the factual matrix needs to be examined at the level of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above submissions,…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…tment made by the assessee, for which reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340)(Bom.), CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank Ltd.(2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Ms. Arju Garodia, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the factual matrix needs to be examined at the level of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above submissions,…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainil&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai L&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai

…7 crore. Therefore, he submitted, no disallowance of interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); and ii) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s CIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.). 40. The learned Departmental Representative drawing our attention to certain observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, before the Assessing Officer the assessee had admitted of utilizing borrowed fund for investment purpose. Therefore, assessee’s claim cannot be accepted. 41. In rejoinder, learned Authorized Represen…

DCIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. Pratap U. Purohit, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit 32(3) Vs. Shri Pratap U. Purohit R.No.108, 1St Floor 307, Jalaram Business C-11, Pratakshyakar Bhavan Centre, Ganjawala Lane Bkc, Bandra Near Chamunda Circle Mumbai-400 051 Borivali (W) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Ahcpp6451F Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM DCIT 32(3) Vs. Shri Pratap U. Purohit R.No.108, 1st Floor 307, Jalaram Business C-11, Pratakshyakar Bhavan Centre, Ganjawala Lane BKC, Bandra Near Chamunda Circle Mumbai-400 051 Borivali (W) Mumbai – 400 068 PAN/GIR No. AHCPP6451F Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri Ashish K V Assessee by Shri Sanjay Kapadia Date of Hearing 11/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement 20/06/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 44, Mumbai dated 22/08/2…

Prashant H. Valia, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result ground No.2&3 of the

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Prashant H. Valia Dcit-20(2), 301, Heritage Plaza, A-Wing, 613, Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Telli Galli Cross Lane, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400069. Pan: Aabv0946M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Devdatta Mainkar (Ar) Respondent By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Prashant H. Valia DCIT-20(2), 301, Heritage Plaza, A-Wing, 613, Piramal Chambers, 6th Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Telli Galli Cross Lane, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400069. PAN: AABV0946M Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Devdatta Mainkar (AR) Respondent by : Ms. Arju Garodia (DR) Date of Hearing : 19.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is direct…

Alchemie Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6886/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बिाम/ Alchemie Financial Services Dcit ,Range-10(3), Ltd. Mumbai 2N D Floor, Udyog Kshetra V. Mulund, Goregoan Link Road, Off Lbs Road Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaca0948C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Dr

…pt income keeping in view ratio of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (supra) , HDFC Bank Ltd (supra) and also decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited v. DCIT reported in (2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.) . It is pertinent to submit that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court also held in the case of CIT v. Sintex Industries Limited reported in (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171(Guj) that when interest free own funds available are more than the investments in securities capable of yielding exempt income , the presumption will apply that the assessee invested own…

Mateen Pyarali Dholkia, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mateen Pyarali Dholkia Dcit-19(3) 90, Gr. Floor, Hill Road, Opp. Vijaya Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bank Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Abapd1241K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2018

…Mateen Pyarali Dholkia 12 ground that it is incorrect and/or rendered on mis-representation. This for the reason that the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench would continue to be binding till it is corrected by a High Court. Also in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has stated at page 545 that the above principle laid down in respect of a Co- ordinate Court would apply with greater force on subordinate Courts and Tribunals. 8. Facts being identical, we follow the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in Devendra Kothari, Homi K. Bhabha, Pradeep Kumar Harlalka and Capt. Avinash C…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai V/S Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai

…14A r/w rule 8D is warranted since the assessee being a banking company holds all its securities as stock–in– trade. In support of such contentions, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) India Advantage Securities, 380 ITR 471’; ii) HDFC Bank v/s CIT, 383 ITR 529; and iii) State Bank of Patiala, 391 ITR 218. 11. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, while deciding similar issue in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009–10, the Tribunal has restored back to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh keeping in view the ratio laid down in certain judicial precedents. 12. The learned Departm…

Progressive Homes, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Progressive Homes Acit, Circle-4(4) 707, Devavrata Sector 17, Cgo Building M.K. Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbi-400703 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahfm5228J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajiv Waglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Progressive Homes ACIT, Circle-4(4) 707, Devavrata Sector 17, CGO Building M.K. Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbi-400703 Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAHFM5228J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajiv Waglay, AR Revenue by : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR Date of Hearing : 04/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 16/05/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The appeal is directed against th…

Goldseal Engineering Products P.Ltd Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6259/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S. Gold Seal Engineering बिाम/ Acit 15(1)(2), Mumbai Products P. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Gold Seal House, V. Village Road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1492R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…owance was later increased to Rs. 4,43,378/- by the AO. It was also submitted that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed an exempt income. The assesse also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT reported in (2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.) to contend that presumption will apply that investments in securities which are capable of I.T.A. No.6259/Mum/2016 yielding exempt income were made out of own funds. It was submitted that owned funds being share capital and reserves as at 31-03-2012 were Rs. 13.06 crores while investments were only to the tune of Rs. 1.97 crores. The learn…

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5946/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

…llowance of interest is warranted. The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom.) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Limited v. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.). It was submitted that the Revenue has not come in appeal against the appellate order of learned CIT(A) for AY 2007-08. It was submitted that there is an increase in fixed assets from Rs. 49.37 crores as at 31-03-2011 to Rs. 65.14 crores as at 31-03-2012 and borrowings were used towards investments in fixed assets.It was submitted that tota…

DCIT Cir 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Geetanjali Trading & Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1), M/S Geetanjali Trading Room No. 23, Ground & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakarbhavan, 3A, Barodawala M.K. Road, Mansion, 81, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan No. Aaacg3265A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 281/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Geetanjali Trading Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 23, Ground Vs. 3A, Barodawala Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mansion, 81, Dr. Annie M.K. Road, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018 Pan No. Aaacg3265A Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Circle 7(1)(1), M/s Geetanjali Trading Room No. 23, Ground & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Floor, AayakarBhavan, 3A, Barodawala M.K. Road, Mansion, 81, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 PAN No. AAACG3265A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 281/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Geetanjali Trading DCIT, Circle 7(1)(1), & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 23, Ground Vs. 3A, Barodawala Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mansion, 81, Dr. A…