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

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 1580/MUM/2020[UNION BANK OF INDIA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)

…f tax free income and accordingly, no disallowance is warranted.” Revenue’s Appeal: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cased and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that as per the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd 383 ITR 529, section 14A cannot be applied if assessee’s interest free funds are more than its investments yielding tax free income?” 3. In the earlier round of litigation, the issue of disallowance made under section 14A was carried to this Tribunal and this Tribunal, vide order dated 17/12/2015 directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of disallo…

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ppeal as regard disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) learned CIT(A) gave a finding that the assessee has sufficient interest free funds. By referring to Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 & HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (383 ITR 529). He deleted the addition 33. As regard of Rule 8D(2)(iii) he held as under :- “Appellant also filed a copy of the order of the ITAT Mumbai in its own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.368/Mum/2015 where in the addition under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is restricted considering the investment which yielded exempt income during the year. I have gone through th…

S M Auto Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1952/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh

Section 14A

…proceedings before the CIT(A) it was contended that the assessee had interest free funds and the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not maintainable in terms of decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 529 (Bom). The CIT(A) considering the same deleted the disallowance of Rs.10,97,770/- made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) but however confirmed the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to an extent of Rs.14,73,543/- holding that the assessee failed to point out any error in the working of disallowance concerning the said disallowance. Aggrieved the said dis…

Continental Device India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8314/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hich yielded tax free income are out of assessee's own funds as long as the own funds exceed the investments which yield tax free income and. there is no need to establish with evidence that the tax free investments have come out of interest free funds [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom) Para 15 & 1.6 in the case of HDFC Bank vs. DCIT. Admittedly the shareholders funds are Rs.104.70 Crore and and investments are Rs.94.84 Crore. i) HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom): ii) CIT vs. Microlabs [2016] 383 ITR 490 (Karnataka); iii) CIT vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 313 (Gujarat). iv) Pro CIT v. Gujarat Sta…

Mulay Construction Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mulay Construction Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Ist Floor, Tapadiya Teraces, Central Circle-1, Adalat Road, Aurangabad – 431 001 Aurangabad Pan : Aadcm1853B Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…h the manner of computation of disallowance as enshrined in Rule 8D(2), we are satisfied that no further interference is warranted in the impugned order on this score. The reliance of the ld. AR on the judgment in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) is misplaced. The issue in that case was qua the disallowance of interest component on taxable securities that was held to be not maintainable because of the assessee having sufficient Shareholders’ fund vis-a-vis the amount of investment. As can be seen, the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, has itself applied the ratio decidendi laid…

M/S.Sheetal Real vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions of law

ITA/83/2010HC Orissa08 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 372A

…ITA/83/2010 REPORTABLE Page 1 of 60 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 02.02.2023 DELIVERED ON:14.03.2023 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA ITA/83/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,…

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Businss of Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 14A

…1 ITR 194 (SC) 2. PCIT vs State Bank of Patiala 391 ITR 218 (P&H High Court) 3. CIT vs M/s India Advantage Securities Ltd (Bom HC) (ITA No1131 of 2013) 4.DCITvsM/s India Advantage Securities Ltd(TM)(Mum)(ITA 6711/M/20-11) 5.HDFC Bank Ltd vs DCIT (Bom HC) (383 ITR 529(para 18-10) 6 6.HDFC Bank Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No.6173/M/16, order dated 08/07/2020(TM) Para 3.7 7. PCIT vs Punjab & Sind Bank (ITA No.904/906 of 2019 order dated 16/10/2019(Del HC)(Para 5-6) 8. ACIT vs The Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd (ITA No.6639- 6640/M/14 order dated 30.06.2020 9. He submitted, even in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2…

Dy CIT CC 7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Man Global Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

ITA 7440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

…efense of his arguments: a)PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd.[2018] 93 taxmann.com 24 (SC) b) CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340): c) CIT V/s Suzlon Energy Limited. 215 Taxman 272 (2013) d) HDFC Bank Ltd Vs. DCIT – 2(3), Mumbai & Others, [2016] 383 ITR 529, 77. The ld Ar submitted that in view of facts of the assesse and judicial decisions as referred to above , for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A, only net interest expenditure if any is required to be considered. The ld AR argued that in present case, there is positive income only and hence disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure i…

Metmin Investment and Trading P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1444/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh: A.Y : 2016-17 Metmin Investment & Trading Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai. 161/162, Mittal Court, A Wing, 16Th (Respondent) Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan : Aaccm2480P (Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT : A.Y : 2016-17 Metmin Investment and Trading Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Private Limited Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai. 161/162, Mittal Court, A Wing, 16th (Respondent) floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. PAN : AACCM2480P (Appellant) Appellant by : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Respondent by : Shri Vivek Perampurna Date of Hearing : 28/10/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 05/11/2021 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in…

Edelcap Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6889/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Edelcap Securities Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Limited Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2) Room No.607, 6th Floor Edelweiss House, Off. CST Road, Aaykar Bhavan Kalina, Santacruz East Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai-400 098 PAN/GIR No.AABCE9000A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Edelcap Securities Limited of Income Tax Circle- Edelweiss House, 3(1)(2) Off. CST Road, Room No.607, 6th Floor Kalina, Santacruz East Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 098 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/G…

Subhkam Ventrures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5682/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R

Section 14A

…nder rule 8D2(ii). The Ld. A.R. submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.), CIT vs. SBI, DHFL Ltd. (2014) 376 ITR 296 (Bom.) and HDFC Bank vs. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.). The Ld. A.R. therefore prayed that since the assessee’s average investments in the securities yielding exempt income being less than the average own funds, therefore, no disallowance can be made under rule 8D2(ii). The second without prejudice propositions made by the Ld. A.R. is that these investments which held by the assessee as stock…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventrures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R

Section 14A

The South Indian Bank Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-009606-009606 - 2011Supreme Court09 Sept 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

Section 14Section 14A

…ich has been made in tax free securities, has come out of interest free funds available with assessee. In such situation Section 14A of the Act would not be applicable. Similar views have been expressed 3 (2019) 410 ITR 466 SC/ (2019) 20 SCC 478. 4 (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) / 2016 SCC Online Bom 1109 Page 11 of 22 by other High Courts in CIT Vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd.5, CIT Vs. Microlabs Ltd.6 and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd.7 Mr. S Ganesh the learned Senior Counsel while citing these cases from the High Courts have further pointed out that those judgments have attained finality. On reading of these judgments, we are…

Phl Finvest P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 280/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 280/मुं/2018 ("न. व.2013-14 ) M/S. Phl Fininvest Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel ,Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacn-5024-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 7(3)(2) Room No.623, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S.Duggle &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…esentative of the assessee placed reliance on following decisions to contend that no disallowance can be made u/s.14A, where own interest free funds are more than the investments made: (i) CIT vs.HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom); (ii) HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 529(Bom); (iii) DCIT vs. Ashok Apparels, 106 taxmann.com 63 (Bom); and (iv) DCIT vs. Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd. 262 Taxman 341(Bom) The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that direct expenses for earning tax free income is merely Rs.3,65,000/- hence, the same can be disallowed under Rule 8D2(i). 4 4.1. The ld.Authorize…

Hdfc Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5672/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Hdfc Bank Limited Acit-2(3)(1) Hdfc Bank House Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…ties, then, there was no justification for the A.O to have disallowed any part of interest payments u/s 14A of the Act. Again, the aforesaid view was taken by the Hon‟ble High Court in the assessee‟s own case i.e HDFC Bank Limited Vs. PCIT-2(3), Mumbai (2006) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). In its aforesaid order, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that when there were sufficient own funds with the assessee, then, there was a presumption that investment in tax free securities was made out of own funds. As such, finding no force in the aforesaid grievance of the revenue we herein dismiss the same. The Ground of appeal N…

M/S Arjun Transport Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4984/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 4984/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2016-17) M/S. Arjun Transport Company Private Limited, Flat No.414, Empire Complex, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aabca-5913-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-12(1)(2) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ravikant Pathak ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smita Verma सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma

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

…ent, the 4 CIT(A) has inherent power u/s.251 of the Act to enhance an assessment. To support her submissions, the ld. DR placed reliance on following decisions: i. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 1991 taxmann.com 30 (SC); ii. HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.); iii. S D Traders vs. CIT, 111 taxmann.com 93 (All.); iv. Gurinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog vs. CIT 18 taxmann.com 176 (Del.); and v. CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) 6. Submissions made by rival sides heard, orders of authorities below examined and the decisions on which respective sides have placed reliance consid…

The Sarswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6609/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neehar Pandey, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ITA Nos. 6609 &6610/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 1 The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. ITO-1(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA. No.6609 /Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. Income tax Officer-1(3)(1) Sarawat Bank Bhavan, Plot No.953, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 PAN – AABAT4497Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No.6610/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Saraswa…

DCIT, CC- 8(1), Mumbai vs. Nirshilp Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6321/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…espectively. Hence it was pleaded that no borrowed funds were utilised for making investment from which exempt income was derived. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 383 ITR 529 (Bom). It was pleaded before the ld CITA that none of the factual and legal submissions made by the assessee were considered by the ld AO with regard to the impugned issue. We find that the ld CITA gave a categorical finding that the interest free funds available with the assessee company are much more than the value of investments that had actua…

DCIT 12 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S India Infoline Finance Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3055/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Mumbai ITA no3055/ 3056/3057/3058/M/2019. investments are much less than the available surplus balances. The CIT(A) has relied on the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power ltd. (313 ITR 340) and HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529) and Honble Tribunal decisions. Further, the revenue has filed the SLP before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance utilities and Power Ltd. And it was dismissed. We find that the assessee has sufficient funds for making investments and the A.O has not doubted the availability of the funds but made disallowance invoking the provisions…

M/S Sinnar Thermal Power Ltd(Formerly Rattanindia Nasik Power Ltd), Delhi vs. Dy CIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

ITA 252/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)

…Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed on the decisions of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Limited reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) ; HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and 383 ITR 529 (Bom). With regard to Asst Year 2017-18 is concerned, we find that the ld AO had resorted to compute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2) of the Rules by not applying the revised computation mechanism provided in the said rule with effect from 2.6.2016. 8.7. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the ld A…