HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range - 7(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2744/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ M/S. Roha Dyechem Pvt. Dcit, Central Range-7(4) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. A44/45, Road No.2, Karve Road, Churchgate- Midc, Andheri (E), 400020. Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacr4974P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals(Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Additional Disallowance Of Rs.44,13,583/- U/S 14A R.W.S. 8D Under Normal Provisions As Well As U/S 115Jb Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Disallowance Of Rs.44,13,583/- Should Be Deleted. Without Prejudice, The Disallowance Be Appropriately Reduced. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend And/Or Alter The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2744/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ M/s. Roha Dyechem Pvt. DCIT, Central Range-7(4) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. A44/45, Road No.2, Karve Road, Churchgate- MIDC, Andheri (E), 400020. Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. :AAACR4974P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Snehal Shah Revenue by: Shri Bharat Andhale (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 05/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement…

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…funds were sufficient enough to explain the investments made by the assessee which had yielded exempt income. Accordingly, the assessee placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited 366 ITR 505 and 383 ITR 529 to drive home the point that interest free funds available with the assessee were sufficient enough to cover the investments that had yielded exempt income. 3.1. We find that the ld. AO disregarded the aforesaid contentions of the assessee and proceeded to disallow Rs.85,90,80,262/- u/s.14A of the Act r.w.Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. We find that as…

Roha Dyechem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2742 /मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) M/S. Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd., A44/45, Road No.2, Midc, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400 093 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aaacr4974P बनाम/ Vs.

…s to the tune of Rs.495.96 crores. Thus, own funds of the assessee were sufficient to cover the investment made. No disallowance in respect of interest expenditure should have been made in the light of decision rendered in the case of HDCF Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 529(Bom). 3. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further contended that the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The provisions of section 14A of the Act are not attracted where the income has been computed under section 115JB of the Act. In support of his submissions the ld.…

Il & Fs Transportation Networks Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Range - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodil & Fs Transportation Networks Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, The Il & Fs Financial Income-Tax, Range -14(2)(1), Center, Plot No.C-22, Room No. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. 460, 4Th Floor, G Block, Bandra- Road, Marine Lines, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aabcc5460A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit -14(2)(1), M/S Il & Fs Transportation Network 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., Il & Fs Financial Centre, 8Th Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Floor, C-22, G Block, B.K.C. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051

…8D that was applicable only w.e.f A.Y. 2008-09. We are afraid that the aforesaid claim of the revenue does not find favour with us. At the outset, we may herein observe that the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) pertains to A.Y 2008-09, and the issue before the Hon‟ble High Court was the disallowance made by the A.O in the case of the assessee before them u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D vide his order passed u/s 143(3), dated 22.12.2010. Be that as it may, the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court in its aforesaid judgments was that in a case where the…

Il & Fs Transportation Networks Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-14(2) (Earlier Addl.CIT, RG. 10(1)), Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.2927 & 2928/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Il & Fs Transportation Networks Addl. Commissioner Of Limited, The Il & Fs Financial Income-Tax, Range -14(2), Center, Plot No.C-22, Room No. [Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Range-10(1), Mumbai] 460, 4Th Floor, G Block, Bandra- Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aabcc5460A (Appellant) (Respondent)

…8D that was applicable only w.e.f A.Y. 2008-09. We are afraid that the aforesaid claim of the revenue does not find favour with us. At the outset, we may herein observe that the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) pertains to A.Y 2008-09, and the issue before the Hon‟ble High Court was the disallowance made by the A.O in the case of the assessee before them u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D vide his order passed u/s 143(3), dated 22.12.2010. Be that as it may, the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court in its aforesaid judgments was that in a case where the…

Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 804 & 805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2011-12)

…of interest free-funds. The said proposition is equally applicable in the context of section 14A of the Act, as held by Hon 'ble Bombay High Court in the case 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 (Born). Therefore, in the above background, we have no hesitation to delete the disallowance of interest made by the AO under section 14A of the Act." 6.7 It could be seen from the table above that the assessee had own funds to cover all the investments made. Respectfully following the hon'ble ITAT's decision in the appellant's own case for AY 2…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…Disallowance u/s 14A 1.1 The CIT(A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since tax free income had been earned from stock in trade based on decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529} and India Advantage Securities Ltd (380 ITR 471). 1.2 The CIT (A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant without remanding the matter back to AO.” 3. The Revenue has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds: “1 "On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back t…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…Disallowance u/s 14A 1.1 The CIT(A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since tax free income had been earned from stock in trade based on decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529} and India Advantage Securities Ltd (380 ITR 471). 1.2 The CIT (A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant without remanding the matter back to AO.” 3. The Revenue has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds: “1 "On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back t…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…Disallowance u/s 14A 1.1 The CIT(A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since tax free income had been earned from stock in trade based on decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529} and India Advantage Securities Ltd (380 ITR 471). 1.2 The CIT (A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant without remanding the matter back to AO.” 3. The Revenue has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds: “1 "On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back t…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…Disallowance u/s 14A 1.1 The CIT(A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since tax free income had been earned from stock in trade based on decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (383 ITR 529} and India Advantage Securities Ltd (380 ITR 471). 1.2 The CIT (A) ought to have allowed the claim of appellant without remanding the matter back to AO.” 3. The Revenue has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds: “1 "On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-14 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Properties Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Godrej Properties Income Tax, Circle-14(1)(2) Limited Mumbai Ground Floor Room No.475, 4Th Floor Phirojshanagar, Aayakar Bhavan Eastern Express Highway, M.K.Road, Vikhroli East Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3995M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Godrej Properties Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax, Circle-14(1)(1) Esplande House Mumbai 2Nd Floor Room No.404, 4Th Floor 29, Hazarimal Somani Aayakar Bhavan Marg, Fort, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3995M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri V. Vinodkumar Assessee By Shri Farooq V. Irani Date Of Hearing 29/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 M/S. Godrej Properties Ltd.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT), ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Godrej Properties Income Tax, Circle-14(1)(2) Limited Mumbai Ground Floor Room No.475, 4th Floor Phirojshanagar, Aayakar Bhavan Eastern Express Highway, M.K.Road, Vikhroli East Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 079 PAN/GIR No. AAACG3995M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/s. Godrej Properties Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Limited Tax, Circle-14(1)(1) Esplande House Mumbai 2nd Floor Room No.404, 4th Floor 29, Hazarimal Somani Aayakar Bhavan Marg, Fort, M.K.Road, Mumbai…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 3076/Mum/2012 2000-01 M/s Larsen ACIT, &Tourbro Ltd., Range 2(2) Taxation Rm No. 577, 5th Department, L&T Floor, House, N.M. Marg, AayakarBhgavan, Bal; lard estate MK Marg, Mumbai. 2 3573/Mum/2012 2000-01 M/s Larsen ACIT, &Tourbro Ltd., Range 2(2) Taxation Rm No. 577, 5th Department, L&T Floor, House, N.M. Marg, AayakarBhgavan, Bal; lard estate MK Marg, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACL0104P अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant…

Mirah Hospitality & Food Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: The Itat In These Cases Against A Common Order Of Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dated 28.5.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of “Hotels & Resorts”, Filed The Return Of Income For The Ay 2009-2010 Declaring The Total Loss Of Rs.43,15,534/- After Set Off Of Ltcg Of Rs. 1,31,36,082/-. Assessee Is A Group Concern Of M/S. Twinkle Group. There Was A Search & Seizure Action On The Said M/S. Twinkle Group U/S 132 Of The Act. Accordingly, In Response To The Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring The Same Total Loss (Rs. (-) 43,15,334/-). Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Determining The Total Loss Of Rs. 3,82,977/- Which Include Certain Disallowances & Rs. 27,68,422/- Is One

…cord. Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted the following proposition with the following citations :- “No disallowance of interest under section 14A when own and non-interest bearing funds exceed investments 1. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 2. 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT 3. 410 ITR 466 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited II Disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income 1. 372 ITR 694 (Del.) Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 2. 286 CTR 457 (P&H) Pr. CIT v. Empire Package Pvt. Ltd 3. 96 CCH 87 (Madras) Tecpro Systems Ltd. v. UOI 4. 102 taxmann.com 438(Mum. - Trib.) ACI…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in AY 2008-09 is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarvertual Court No. Iii It(Tp)A No. 3263/Mum/2017 For Ay 2008-09 It(Tp) No. 794/Mum/2018 For Ay 201-011 Tata Consultancy Services Vs Dcit Ltd.,9Th Floor, Nirmal Bldg, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29Th Floor, Wtc, Nariman Point. Mumbai – 21 Cufee Parade Pan Aaacr4849R Mumbai- 05. Appellant Respondednt

…794 & 1207/Mum/2018. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai (AY 2008-09 &2010-11) support of his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd 402 ITR 640 SC, Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd 328 ITR 81 (Bom), HDFC Bank Ltd 383 ITR 529 (Bom). 30. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The AO after invoking the provisions of Rule 8D made disallowance of Rs. 14,12,77,945/-, which consist disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) of Rs. 53,18,829/- (suo moto offered by assessee), under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of Rs. 14,…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Colgate – Palmolive (India) Ltd., Addl. Commissioner of Income Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3), Mumbai. Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400076. PAN No. AAACC4309B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Soumya Kulkarni/Mr. Arvind V. Sonde, AR Revenue by : Mr. Michael Jerald, DR Last Date of Hearing : 06/03/2020 Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. Th…