HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent Cir -1(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

…decided in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4329/Mum/2014 dated 24th March 2018. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [383 ITR 529]. (iv) He submitted that the learned CIT (A) has invoked the amendment made in Rule 8D of the Rules, by notification dated 2nd June 2016. He submitted that above notification was issued on 2nd June 2016, the impugned A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, this amendment invoke by the learned CIT (A) for A.Y. 2016- 17 is not proper. For this proposition, he re…

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Cir-1(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

…decided in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4329/Mum/2014 dated 24th March 2018. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [383 ITR 529]. (iv) He submitted that the learned CIT (A) has invoked the amendment made in Rule 8D of the Rules, by notification dated 2nd June 2016. He submitted that above notification was issued on 2nd June 2016, the impugned A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, this amendment invoke by the learned CIT (A) for A.Y. 2016- 17 is not proper. For this proposition, he re…

Eldelweiss Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 4(1) (1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

…decided in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4329/Mum/2014 dated 24th March 2018. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [383 ITR 529]. (iv) He submitted that the learned CIT (A) has invoked the amendment made in Rule 8D of the Rules, by notification dated 2nd June 2016. He submitted that above notification was issued on 2nd June 2016, the impugned A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, this amendment invoke by the learned CIT (A) for A.Y. 2016- 17 is not proper. For this proposition, he re…

M/S. First Light Properties P. Ltd.(Earstwhile Known As M/S. Sumer Builders P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC, 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed and stand of AO is confirmed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S First Light Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As M/S Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd.) 205, Commerce House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, For, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacs7947P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Sh. Sandip Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

…warranted. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements; 1) CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bombay) 2) CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Limited – (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) 3) HDFC Bank Limited vs DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bombay) 13. It is a settled position of law that where there is no exempt income earned, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D can be made. In this background, ground no.3 of the assessee is allowed and 14 disallowance of Rs. 41, 79,740/- is deleted. Moreover, as discussed (supra) nothing has been charged/ debited to Pr…

M/S. Subhkam Ventures (India), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

…nvestments in tax-free securities and therefore, no disallowance could have been made under Section 14A of the Act as per the judgments of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs HDFC Bank Ltd: [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bombay) and HDFC Bank Vs DCIT: [2016] 383 ITR 529. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative verified the fact that the Tribunal has, vide common order dated 23.09.2021, allowed the appeals of the Appellant herein for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15. However, Ld. Departmental Representative still relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) to contend that sufficient relief has already been g…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A No.6908/Mum/2012 - A.Y. 2001-02 I.T.A No.2117/Mum/2013 - A.Y. 2002-03 Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income- Taxation Department, L&T tax, Range-2(2), Mumbai House N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 001 PAN : AAACL0140P APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A No.6878 /Mum/2012 - A.Y. 2001-02 I.T.A No.2284/Mum/2013 - A.Y. 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner of vs Larsen & Toubro Limited Income-tax, Range-2(2), Taxation Department, L&T House Mumbai N.M. Mar…