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 3(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7797/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…rder of AO. 16. It was argued by learned AR that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made since own funds of assessee are more than investment. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.  HDFC Bank Limited vs DOT (383 ITR 529 Bom)  CIT vs HDFC Bank Limited (366 ITR 505 Bom)  C1T vs Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 0340 Bom)  DCIT vs Crossborder Investment Pvt. Ltd [TTA 7658/Mum/2011 ]  Edelweiss Securities Limited vs DCIT pTA 7235/Mum/2Q 11 ]  M/s. Laadki Trading & Investment Ltd vs Addll. CIT [ITA 5493/Mum/2012]  Mrs. Anahaita Nairn Shah vs APT [ITA…

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6212/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6212/Mum/2011& 1187/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09& 2009-10)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish V. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…s and no borrowed funds were used to earn exempt income and therefore the provision of section 14A(2) r.w.r 8D is no attracted. In this respect, assessee relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT vrs. HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505) (Bom HC) and HDFC Vrs. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom HC). It was also submitted that the unsecured loans, taken were utilized for giving ICD’s (Inter Corporate Deposits) to parties at higher rate of interest. Ld. AR further submitted that the strategic investments are to be ignored for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act and in this respect, relied upon the judgment in the cas…

DCIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2817/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

For Appellant: Farrokh V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: B. Sriniwas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Objector against the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A). The Counsel also pointed out that issue under Cross Objection is squarely covered in favour of the Cross Objector by the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd v/s DCIT 383 ITR 529 (Born) and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Limited 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 8. The Cross Objector inadvertently and under a bona fide belief did not file Cross Objections even Cross Objection No. 38/Mum/2018 though it had taken a ground before CIT(A) that no disallowance u/s 14A should be made following t…

Major Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

ITA 2153/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.2153/M/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Major Brands (India) Pvt. Vs. Acit-5(2), Mumbai Ltd. 401,Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Aayakarbhavan,M.K. Road,Andheri(East), Mumbai- Road,Mumbai-400020. 400059. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm 4949 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Paras S.Savla, Ar Respondent By :Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Paras S.Savla, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीऱसं./ITA No.2153/M/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Major Brands (India) Pvt. Vs. ACIT-5(2), Mumbai Ltd. 401,Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla AayakarBhavan,M.K. Road,Andheri(East), Mumbai- Road,Mumbai-400020. 400059. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACCM 4949 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri Paras S.Savla, AR Respondent by :Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 21/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal S…

Kalyani Steels Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 648/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…rest is called for. 8. On the issue of presumption that when interest free funds available with the assessee are in excess of investments it is out of interest free funds, 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 free securities coming out of assessee’s own funds in case the same are in excess of t…

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ground of appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2483/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sbi Capital Markets Ltd. Addl.Cit Ltu, 202, Maker Tower E, Cuff 29Th Floor Centre-I, Vs. Parade, World Trade Centre, Mumbai-400005 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacs7914E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajnikant V. Chaniyari, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rajnikant V. Chaniyari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 SBI Capital Markets Ltd. Addl.CIT LTU, 202, Maker Tower E, Cuff 29th floor Centre-I, Vs. Parade, World Trade Centre, Mumbai-400005 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 PAN No. AAACS7914E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajnikant V. Chaniyari, AR Revenue by : Mr. V. Justin, DR Date of Hearing : 15/11/2017 Date of pronouncement : 09/02/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are dir…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Garden Court Distilleries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4784/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledcit-9(3)(2) V. M/S. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Unit No. 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Raheja Plaza, Off. Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT-9(3)(2) v. M/s. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 418, 4th Floor, Unit No. 303/304, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Raheja Plaza, Off. Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 PAN NO: AAACG 1457 C (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O NO.324/MUM/2017 [Arising Out of ITA NO.4784/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2012-13)] M/s. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT-9(3)(2) Unit No. 303/304, 3rd Floor, Room No. 418, 4th Floor, Ra…

Wadhwagroup Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6357/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner Of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, Central Circle- Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd बिधम/ 5(4), Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Platina, Plot C-59, G Floor, Air India Building. Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Nariman Point Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…not find that question (A) gives rise to any substantial question of law and is therefore rejected.” We find that the aforesaid order was thereafter followed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). However, we may herein observe that in both of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements the Hon‟ble High Court had stressed on drawing of a presumption that in the backdrop of the availability of interest free own funds, it is to be presumed that the investment made by the assessee was out of the interest-free funds available with it. We find…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhawan Group Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6268/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/MUM/2010[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…nk as per page no. 286 to 361 of Paper Book. In support of this ITA No. 4736 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of various Hon’ble High Court viz; Bombay High Court in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (383 ITR 529), CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Tin Box Co. (260 ITR 367), Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 82 of 2013(Gujarat HC), UTI Bank Ltd. (32 taxmann.com 370) (Guj HC). It was further argued that Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 1999-2000. On this submission the ld. AR o…

ACIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4598/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-00

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

Lakshmi Builder & Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2997/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy, CIT

…ssment year 1999–2000 to 2002–03, has deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure. Further, in support of his 11 M/s. Tata Morots Ltd. contention, the learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:– i) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s CIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); and iii) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). 24. The learned Departmental Representative, though, supported the decision of the first appellate authority in respect of disallowance of interest expenditure, however, so far as disallowance of other expenditure is conc…

ACIT (OSD) - 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Finance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2997/MUM/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy, CIT

…sessee’s own case for assessment year 1999–2000 to 2002–03, has deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure. Further, in support of his contention, the learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:– i) HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s CIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom.); and iii) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). 24. The learned Departmental Representative, though, supported the decision of the first appellate authority in respect of disallowance of interest expenditure, however, so far as disallowance of other expenditure is conc…

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

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

ITA 2882/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2882/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Spaco Technologies बिाम/ Dcit, Circle 5(3), Aayakar (India) P. Ltd., Bhavan, Mumbai 901, Prasad Chambers, V. Opera House, Mumbai- 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcs5307E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. M.C. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2882/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Spaco Technologies बिाम/ DCIT, Circle 5(3), Aayakar (India) P. Ltd., Bhavan, Mumbai 901, Prasad Chambers, v. Opera House, Mumbai- 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABCS5307E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. M.C. Naniwadekar Revenue by : Shri. Rajat Mittal सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 16-01-2018 घोषणा की तारीख…

Saryu Properties and Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5675/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 5675 & 5676/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13&2013-14)

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Kumar Ramani /VinayFor Respondent: Sh. M. V. Rajguru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ed in not taking into account the following decisions on the point of Jurisdictional High Court: M/s Saryu Properties & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. a) CIT vs. I-IDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (BOM) b) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power 313 ITR 340 (BOM) c) HDFC vs. DCIT 383 ITR 529 (BOM) 4. The learned CIT (A)erred in not taking into account following decisions holding that disallowance u/s 14(a)cannot exceed exempted income i) DAGA Global Chemicals vs ACIT-ITA No. 5592/M/12 dated 02.02.20 13 ii) Sahara India Fin. Corp. vs DCIT (2014)-105 DTR I (DEL) iii) CIT vs GL!jaratNarmade Valley-221 Taxman 479 (GUi) 5. It is pray…

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)

…he 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 investments, they are presumed to be made from interest fr…

Saryu Properties and Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5674/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Saryu Properties & Hotels Pvt. Dcit-Cc 4(2), 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Ltd. बनाम/ Plot No. 25, Girnar, ‘B’Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. 1St Floor, Pali Mala Road, Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 6983 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sunil K. Ramaro & Shri Vinay Sinha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Dated 30.06.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Not Admitting The Additional Grounds Relating To Disallowance U/S I4-A Holding That The Said Disallowance Was In The Original

For Appellant: Shri Sunil K. Ramaro &For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t from the firm. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the following decisions on the point of Jurisdictional High Court: a) CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 1TR 505 (BOM) b) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power 313 1TR 340 (BOM) c) HDFC vs. DCIT 383 ITR 529 (BOM) 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking into account following decisions holding that disallowance u/s 14(A)cannot exceed exempted income i) DAGA Global Chemicals vs ACIT-1TA No. 5592/M/12 dated 02.02.2013 ii) Sahara India Fin. Corp. vs DCIT (2014)-105 DTR 1 (DEL) iii) CIT vs Gujarat Narmade Valley-221 Taxman 479 (GUJ) 7. It is prayed…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Finance & Investments Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, relevant grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6334/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar-CIT-DR

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

…Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in 6 the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom). Before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied heavily on the judgment of the of the Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom), which is in substance relevant for the proposition no disallowance under clause (ii) is needed if the own funds are more than the investment. Considering the same, we agree with the conclusions drawn by the CIT (A) on this issue. Similarly, referring to the relief granted by the CIT (A) in excluding the investments in stock-in-trade for t…

Asst CIT (OSD) 8(3), Mumbai vs. Time Technoplast Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed and assessee appeal is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7008/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7045/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Time Technoplast Ltd. बिधम/ Acit, Range-8(3) 102, Todi Complex, 35 Saki Vs. Mumbai Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7008/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit, Range-8(3) बिधम/ M/S. Time Technoplast Ltd. 102, Todi Complex, 35 Saki Vs. Mumbai Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact2783J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri V. Justin (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02. 01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 24.09.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. Ita. Nos 7045/M/2014 7008/M/2014 A.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80

…he assessee has argued that the assessee own funds are more than investment, therefore, there should be no disallowance on account of interest expenditure in view ITA. Nos 7045/M/2014 7008/M/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 of law settled in HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). The application of fund in the investment is to the tune of Rs.1,49,39,20,326/-. The assessee fund is more than the investment. The case of the assessee is clearly falls within the purview of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). Therefore, in the said circumstances, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) in question and restor…

M/S China Trust Commercial Bank, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 3

ITA 1257/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: PendingITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishichina Trust Commercial Bank, Vs. Adit, A-1/16, Wenger House, Circle-1(1), Connaught Place, New Delhi International Taxation, Pan:Aaacc4000B New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KVS Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri TM Shiva Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 44C

…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 Rs. 364206/- on account fo interest expenses being allegedly paid on pro rata basis relating to earning of tax free interest income of Rs. 15.50 lacs on tax free HUDCO bonds of Rs. 2 crores. In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed. 9. Gr…