HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Addl. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACR5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Ltd.,3rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-IV, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACR5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Ltd.,3rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large…

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

…t of suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. It was further explained that own funds are much in excess of the borrowed funds for which our attention was invited to page- 8 of the paper book. Reliance was placed upon the decision in HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) and CIT vs M/s Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). It was further explained that the assessee is in the business of finance and the interest income is more than interest expenditure. Our attention was invited to page-14 of the paper book and the latest decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High C…

S. Mansukhlal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Soods. Mansukhlal & Co., फनाभ/ Dcit, Range 14(2), Earnest House, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai-02. Ruia Building, 395, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aahfs9459A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, Dr

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. Mansukhlal & Co., फनाभ/ DCIT, Range 14(2), Earnest House, 3rd Floor, Mumbai-02. Ruia Building, 395, Kalbadevi road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AAHFS9459A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Rajan Vora प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 15.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM…

Bharat Talakshi Chheda, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Soodbharat Talakshi Chheda, फनाभ/ Jcit-23(2), 19, Ganesh Baug, Mumbai. Vs. J Nehru Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpc1879Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Ms. Dinkal Hariya प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 28.04.2014 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-7, Mumbai Dated 15.01.2014 For The Ay 2009-2010. 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 11,06,409/- U/S 14A Of The Act. Ao Considered The Above For Disallowance Out Of The Total Claim Of Interest Expenses Of R. 16,37,827/-. Ao Is Said To Have Ignored The Fact That The Assessee Has Adequate Own Funds & Also The Concept Of “Presumption” Laid Down In Various Judicial Pronouncements. On Appeal, Cit (A) Confirmed The Above Stand Of The Ao. 3. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld Ar For The Assessee Brought Our Attention To The Binding Judgment Of The Cit Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 Itr 340 (Bom.) & Also Binding Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Hdfc Bank Ltd Vs. Dcit [2016] 383 Itr 529 (Bombay) & Requested For Directing The Ao To Apply The Said Ratios Of The Judgments.

…set, Ld AR for the assessee brought our attention to the binding judgment of the CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and also binding judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bombay) and requested for directing the AO to apply the said ratios of the judgments. 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material and the cited precedents of the High Court (supra), we of the considered opinion, the matter should be remanded to the file of the AO for…

Standard Greases & Specialities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainstandard Greases & Specialities फनाभ/ Dcit-10(2), P Ltd., Mumbai. Vs. 101 Ketan Apartments, 233 R.B. Mehta Marg, Patel Chowk, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-077. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aalcs2136B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…g the various binding judgments on the subject. It is further submitted that during the assessment proceedings, AO / CIT (A) may be directed to consider the binding judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bombay) as well as the decision of the ITAT in the caseof Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. Addl. CIT in ITA Nos. 5408/M/2012 and others dated 15.01.2014 for the proposition that the exempt income relatable to the investment in the sister concern is required to be exempt while calculating the average investment for the purpose of clause (iii) of Rule 8…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Rallis India Ltd., Vs. Acit – 3(3), Mumbai – 400 C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 020 Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G.Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcr2657N Appellant) .. Respondent)

…interest free funds available with it to take care of the exempt income yielding investment has not been disputed by the Departmental Authorities. Therefore, applying ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), we hold that no disallowance of interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made. As far as disallowance of administrative expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, it is the contention of the assessee that one of the employee is looking after the investment activit…

Sanjay Kumar Poddar, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 15(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3150/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Jain & Associates, Circle 15(1),Matru Mandir, Vs. 12 Engineer Building, 265, Princess Mumbai-400 006. Street, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan:Aabpp 2018 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3961/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Vs. Jain & Associates, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr Assessee By: Shri S.L. Jain

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3150/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sanjay Kumar…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

…account,that the assessee had established direct nexus between interest received and interest paid, that dividend distribution tax had been paid in respect of dividend earned, that the dividends or not exempt income.He referred to the cases of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529), Jivrajka Associates Private Ltd.(40CCH 424). 4.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the AO had disallowed and amount of Rs. 4,00,52, 243/-(under the head interest-2.84 crore and under the head 0.5% of investment-Rs. 1.15 crore), that the FAA,referring to the order for the assessment year 2008-0…

Jayant R. Pardiwala, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhjayant R Pardiwala, 219, High Tech Acit, 24(1), Prayatyksh Kar Industrial Centre, Caves Road, Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Jogeshwari(E), Mumbai-400060. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapp4718N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ITA No.3033/M/2016 Jayant R Pardiwala IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Jayant R Pardiwala, 219, High Tech ACIT, 24(1), Prayatyksh Kar Industrial Centre, Caves Road, Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Jogeshwari(E), Mumbai-400060. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAAPP4718N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K. Shivram Sr Advocate : with Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav Advocate Revenue by : Sh. B.C. S.Nayak- CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 23.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PA…

Ninja Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(1)

…Securities Private Ltd.(99 DTR 298) the Tribunal had held that disallowance u/s.14 A could be made even if shares were held as stock in trade. 4.During the course of hearing before us,the Authorised Representative (AR) relied upon the cases of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529), India Advantages Securities Ltd (380 ITR 471), Max India Ltd (290 CTR 76). The Departmental Representative (DR) left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. 5.After hearing the rival submissions,we find that the only issue to be decided is as to whether the expenditure eligible to stock in trade can be disallowed invoking the provisions of s…

Videocon Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Videcon Industries The Deputy Commissioner Ltd.,171-C, Mittal Court, of Income Tax, Range Vs. Nariman Point, 3(3)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021 M.K. Road, PAN: AABCV4012H Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Arvind Sonde, A.R. Revenue by : Shri N.K. Chand, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 24.02.2017 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal has b…

Mytas Investment Trust, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 23(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4948/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Maytas Investment Trust Acit-23(1) Room No.122, 1St Floor The Il&Fs Financial Centre Plot No.C-22, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Matru Mandir, Grant Road Complex, Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aactm 5906 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5590/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 वष" Acit-23(1) Vs. Maytas Investment Trust Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400 051. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri N.P. Singh, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri D.V. Lakhani (Ar) सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 18. 01.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 23/06/2016 Of The Cit(A)-33,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee, An Investment- Trust, Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/ 2012,Declaring Loss Of Rs. 16.05 Crores. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S. 143 (3) Of The Act,On 30/03/2015, Determining Its Income At Rs. 11.29 Crores.

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ बी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“B”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4948/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Maytas Investment Trust ACIT-23(1) Room No.122, 1st Floor The IL&FS Financial Centre Plot No.C-22, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Matru Mandir, Grant Road Complex, Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051. Mum…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. India Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cir.6(1), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. India Fashions Ltd., A2/369 Shah & Nahar Indl.Estate, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai 400 013 Pan:Aabci 4292A .... Respondent C.No.68/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6574/Mum/2014, Assessment Year - 2010-11)

…the investments are out of interest free funds and that such proposition is applicable even in the context of section 14A of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom). 6.1 The aforesaid factual aspects emerges from the Annual Financial Statement of the assessee, copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at pages 3 to 11. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative has not controverted the factual matrix and, therefore, in our view, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in t…

Abc Bearing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negithe Dcit, Cir.6(1), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S.Abc Bearing Ltd. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan: Aaact 5018Q .... Respondent M/S.Abc Bearing Ltd. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan: Aaact 5018Q .... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Cir.6(1), Room No.511, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020

…situation has not been repudiated by the Revenue at any stage and, therefore, following the ratio of (Assessment Year 2009-10) the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom), wherein the principle laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.(supra) has been applied in the context of section 14A of the Act also, the impugned disallowance is not maintainable. Thus, noticing that the interest-free funds available with the assessee in the shape of Share c…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Abc Bearing Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negithe Dcit, Cir.6(1), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S.Abc Bearing Ltd. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan: Aaact 5018Q .... Respondent M/S.Abc Bearing Ltd. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan: Aaact 5018Q .... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Cir.6(1), Room No.511, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020

…situation has not been repudiated by the Revenue at any stage and, therefore, following the ratio of (Assessment Year 2009-10) the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom), wherein the principle laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.(supra) has been applied in the context of section 14A of the Act also, the impugned disallowance is not maintainable. Thus, noticing that the interest-free funds available with the assessee in the shape of Share c…

DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Interactive Brokers (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ ई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“I” Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. . . . एन. . . . "साद सी "साद "साद, "याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA No.1192/Mum/2015 : िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannuthe Acit-3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt. Ltd., 154/C, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaacb 2156M .... Respondent

…h Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Reliance Utilities And Power Limited., 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Consequently, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom) and in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom), the interest disallowed in pursuance to Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules has been deleted. Apart there from, the CIT(A) has observed in para – 5.1.6 of his order that the Assessing Officer has not given any justification for rejecting the claim of the assessee that no expenditure was incurred in earning dividend income. Accordingly, in this man…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 401/Mum./2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) M/S. Rallis India Ltd. C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Building ……………. Appellant 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G. Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aabcr2657N V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–3(3), Mumbai 400 020 आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 489/Mum./2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(3), Mumbai 400 020 V/S M/S. Rallis India Ltd. C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Building ……………. Respondent 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G. Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aabcr2657N निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri M.M. Golvala A/W Shri K. Bulsara रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Jain सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 26.09.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016

…interest free funds available with it to take care of the exempt income yielding investment has not been disputed by the Departmental Authorities. Therefore, applying ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) and CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), we hold that no disallowance of interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made. As far as disallowance of administrative expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, it is the contention of the assessee that one of the employee is looking after the investment activit…

Edelwess Finance & Investments Ltd ( Formerly Known As Cross Border Investments P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

…covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom). Further, CIT (A) also relied on another judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom) and mentioned that the assessee is having excess interest free funds in such case, no disallowance is called for under clause (ii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. We agree with the said decision of the CIT (A) on this issue and therefore, the conclusions drawn by the CIT (A) are upheld. Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that for c…

DCIT OSD 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Saraswat Co-Op Bank P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8622/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Deputy Commissioner Of The Saraswat Co-Operative बनाम/ Income Tax(Osd),1(1) Bank Limited V. Room No. 540/564, 5 T H Floor Madhushree, Plot No. 85 Aayakar Bhawan, M K Road District Navi Mumbai- New Marine Lines 400 703 Mumbai-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact5543L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…r that the AO shall also be guided by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Powers Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and also decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited v. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom.) while computing disallowance of interest expenditure and if the assessee’s own interest- free funds are more than the investments in the securities capable of yielding ITA 8622 & 7738/Mum/2010 , 19 ITA 1140 & 694/Mum/2012 , ITA 5627/Mum/2013 & ITA 1/Mum/2014 exempt income, presumption will apply unless rebutted by the Revenue that the…