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 14ASection 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8DSection 10(34)Section 115JBSection 115JB(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115jb(2)corporate guaranteedisallowance of interest expendituredisallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14amost appropriate methodinterest under section 234badvance taxbook profitsarm's length pricesection 115jassociated enterprises

Judgments citing HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

Kesoram Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 505/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…he investment is only Rs. 47.88 crores. The learned AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd. (ITA 109 of 2016 dated 15.02.2017) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 6. We note that the assessee had own funds of Rs. 981.92 and the investments were only to the tune of Rs. 47.88 crores at the end of the year. From this figures we find that the assessee had at its disposals sufficient funds to make the investment which yielded exempt income. We further note…

Kesoram Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1188/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…he investment is only Rs. 47.88 crores. The learned AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd. (ITA 109 of 2016 dated 15.02.2017) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 6. We note that the assessee had own funds of Rs. 981.92 and the investments were only to the tune of Rs. 47.88 crores at the end of the year. From this figures we find that the assessee had at its disposals sufficient funds to make the investment which yielded exempt income. We further note…

Kesoram Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl C.I.T RG - 5, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 773/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…he investment is only Rs. 47.88 crores. The learned AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd. (ITA 109 of 2016 dated 15.02.2017) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 6. We note that the assessee had own funds of Rs. 981.92 and the investments were only to the tune of Rs. 47.88 crores at the end of the year. From this figures we find that the assessee had at its disposals sufficient funds to make the investment which yielded exempt income. We further note…

D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1995/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…he investment is only Rs. 47.88 crores. The learned AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd. (ITA 109 of 2016 dated 15.02.2017) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 6. We note that the assessee had own funds of Rs. 981.92 and the investments were only to the tune of Rs. 47.88 crores at the end of the year. From this figures we find that the assessee had at its disposals sufficient funds to make the investment which yielded exempt income. We further note…

ACIT, Circle-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Industries. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1722/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…he investment is only Rs. 47.88 crores. The learned AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd. (ITA 109 of 2016 dated 15.02.2017) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 6. We note that the assessee had own funds of Rs. 981.92 and the investments were only to the tune of Rs. 47.88 crores at the end of the year. From this figures we find that the assessee had at its disposals sufficient funds to make the investment which yielded exempt income. We further note…

Kesoram Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Add.CIT, Range-5, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1037/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…he investment is only Rs. 47.88 crores. The learned AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd. (ITA 109 of 2016 dated 15.02.2017) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 6. We note that the assessee had own funds of Rs. 981.92 and the investments were only to the tune of Rs. 47.88 crores at the end of the year. From this figures we find that the assessee had at its disposals sufficient funds to make the investment which yielded exempt income. We further note…

Mukta Arts Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1658/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1658/Mum/2013 & 1629/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Mukta Arts Limited Addl. Cit 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Mukta House Aayakar Bhavan, Filmcity Complex, M K Road V. Goregaon(East) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400065 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacm9513F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri. T A Khan
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1658/Mum/2013 & 1629/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Mukta Arts Limited Addl. CIT 11(1) 3rd Floor, Mukta House Aayakar Bhavan, Filmcity Complex, M K Road v. Goregaon(East) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400065 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACM9513F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri. Rahul Hakani Revenue by : Shri. T A Khan सुनवाई की तारी…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4355/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bank Of Baroda Dcit-2(1)(1) Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bank Of Baroda Dcit-2(1)(1) Vs. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road

Section 253Section 254(1)

…ction 14A is warranted as the assessee hold all its securities as stock-in-trade. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of India Advantage Securities 381 ITR 471, HDFC vs. CIT 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) and decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in PCIT Vs State Bank of Patiala (391 ITR 218). The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the similar issues was partly allowed in favour of assessee in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 2480/Mum/2015, wherein the issue was remitted back to the file of Assessing Offi…

Symphony International, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6291/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Symphony International Asst. Commissioner Of 17/19, Shamaldas Gandhi Vs. Income Tax-18(3), Marg, Princess Street, Near C-11, 6Th Floor, Room Mangaldas Market, Marine No. 602, Bandra Kurla Lines (E), Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aamfs2805B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mukesh B. Advani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Mukesh B. Advani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Rai, DR
Section 143Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Symphony International Asst. Commissioner of 17/19, Shamaldas Gandhi Vs. Income Tax-18(3), Marg, Princess Street, Near C-11, 6th floor, Room Mangaldas Market, Marine No. 602, Bandra Kurla Lines (E), Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAMFS2805B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Mukesh B. Advani, AR Revenue by : Mr. Saurabh Rai, DR Date of Hearing : 19/03/2018 Date of pronouncement : 18/04/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PR…

Tata Moters Limited (Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range.-2(3), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Pawan Singhtata Motors Limited. Dcit -2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Street, Hutatma Chowk, Vs. Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Tata Motors Limited. Acit -2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(3) Tata Motors Limited. R. No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Mumbai. Vs. Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arati Vissanji (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…cient interest free funds then the investment made to earn the exempt income. No interest disallowance was made in earlier years. The learned AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of HDFC Bank Ltd versus CIT (383 ITR 529 Bom) and in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (313 ITR 340 Bom). On the other hand the learned AR for the revenue fairly conceded that this ground of appeal is covered in favour of assessee. 16. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that similar ground of appea…

Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. National Commodities & Derivatives Exchange Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms indicated above and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 62/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Asst. Cit 15(2)(1) Vs. M/S. National Commodities & R.No.403, 4Th Floor Derivatives Exchange Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Corporate Park, 1St Floor, Near G.E. Garden M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 L.B.S.Marg, Kanjurmarg(W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aabcn7696K Appellant) Respondent) .. M/S. National Commodities Vs. Dcit 10(1) & Derivatives Exchange Now Acit 15(2)(1) Ltd., Mumbai Corporate Park, 1St Floor, Near G.E. Garden L.B.S.Marg, Kanjurmarg(W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No Aabcn7696K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 37

…t of making any disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) out of interest expenditure, as the assessee has not used any borrowed funds for making investments. He also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited (383 ITR 529). The assessee has pointed out that the loan funds have been used for specific purposes. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has not applied the ratio of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court. With regard to the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) also, we notice that the assessee has mainly invested in units of mutual fund units, which…

Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue stood dismissed

ITA 923/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.923/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers Dcit 4(3) (P) Ltd., 206 Anand Bhavan, R.No. 649, 6 T H Floor, 17 Babugenu Road, Aaykar Bhavan, V. Princess Street, M K Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacp2213P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal
Section 10Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…tune of Rs.19.92 crores and in our considered view ratio of decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) and also decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT reported in (2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom) will apply and presumption will apply that assessee has invested its own funds in making of the investment in Mutual Funds and there is no finding recorded by authorities below that interest bearing funds were specifically used for making investments in Mutual Funds and no direct nexus between interest bearing funds with the investments made…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co, . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6055/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar with MsFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…see made tax free investment only Rs. 7.57 Crore. Therefore, no interest disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) is warranted in support of his submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT 383 ITR 529) (Bombay High Court) and CIT Vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340 (B)]. In other alternative submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the disallowance under section 14A should not be restricted to exempt income. The assessee earned exempt income of Rs. Ms Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. 28,000/- only. Therefore, the disallo…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar with MsFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…see made tax free investment only Rs. 7.57 Crore. Therefore, no interest disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) is warranted in support of his submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT 383 ITR 529) (Bombay High Court) and CIT Vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340 (B)]. In other alternative submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the disallowance under section 14A should not be restricted to exempt income. The assessee earned exempt income of Rs. Ms Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. 28,000/- only. Therefore, the disallo…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6257/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145A

…isallowance of Rs.564.59 lacs made by the AO. 10.3 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the disallowance has been made by the AO u/s 14A only with respect to interest expenditure. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in HDFC Bank Ltd. [383 ITR 529] (Bom.), TATA Unisys Ltd. [447 TTJ 8] (Mum ITAT) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 taxmann.com 135) (Bom.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 10.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. It is found, as recorded at page 28 of the assessment order dated 20.03…

Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1828/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1828/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, 1St Floor, Alankar Cinema Building, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aabca5142M Vs.

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…the correctness of said expenditure. 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Ors. (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) held that in view of interest free funds available with the assessee, no disallowance was to be made on account of interest expenditure, if any, relatable to earning of exempt income. Our attention was drawn to the Balance Sheet placed at page 11 of the Paper Book to point out that the assessee had share capital of ₹ 5 lakhs and Reserves &…

Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4269/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Icici Securities Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Income Tax Range Vs. Marg, Churchgate, 4(1), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 ICICI Securities Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of ICICI Centre, H.T. Parekh Income Tax Range Vs. Marg, Churchgate, 4(1), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai. PAN No. AAACI0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, AR Revenue by : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Date of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date of pronouncement: 19/03/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orde…

Nrb Bearings Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3770/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 23Section 40

…ilable with the assessee is in far excess of the value of investments. Accordingly the presumption would be that the assessee has used its own funds for making investments as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529). Accordingly disallowance of interest expenditure u/r 8D(2)(ii) is not called for. Accordingly we modify the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 8D(2)(ii) of the I T Rules. 7 M/s. NRB Bearings Ltd. 22. With regard to the disallowance made out of administrative expense…

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. M/S Banwarilall Pasari, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2115/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2114 & 2115/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Acit Cir 34..............................………………………...........................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 107. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari………………………………………………...............................Respondent 16, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aacfb 7611 A] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2018 Order

…arilal Pasari submitted by the appellant for the subject Assessment Year. It is also seen that the situation is covered by the case laws and judicial precedents filed by the appellant, more specifically by the judgment of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT & Ors. (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). In view of the factual matrix emerging in the circumstances, as well as the judicial precedents relevant in the matter, I find that the appellant firm is deserving of relief and the action of the Ld. A.O. is unsustainable. The ground is therefore allowed in favour of the appellant”. 5. The learned DR submitted that interest free loans wer…

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. M/S Banwarilall Pasari, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2114/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2114 & 2115/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Acit Cir 34..............................………………………...........................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 107. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari………………………………………………...............................Respondent 16, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aacfb 7611 A] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2018 Order

…arilal Pasari submitted by the appellant for the subject Assessment Year. It is also seen that the situation is covered by the case laws and judicial precedents filed by the appellant, more specifically by the judgment of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT & Ors. (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). In view of the factual matrix emerging in the circumstances, as well as the judicial precedents relevant in the matter, I find that the appellant firm is deserving of relief and the action of the Ld. A.O. is unsustainable. The ground is therefore allowed in favour of the appellant”. 5. The learned DR submitted that interest free loans wer…