HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of interest as the assessee has its own funds much more than the investments and followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., v. DCIT [383 ITR 529]. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the cross objections filed by the assessee it challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to the exempt income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Priv…

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of interest as the assessee has its own funds much more than the investments and followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., v. DCIT [383 ITR 529]. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the cross objections filed by the assessee it challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to the exempt income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Priv…

Trent Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl. C.I.T.-2(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Trent Ltd., v. Add. CIT – 2(3) Bombay House, 2nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACL1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. CIT – 2(3) v. M/s. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5th Floor Bombay House, 2nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACL1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Trent Ltd., v. Dy. CIT – 2(3) Bombay House, 2nd Floor, 24 Aa…

Essel Propack Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhessel Propack Limited, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Top Floor, Times Tower, Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Room No. 563, 5Th Floor, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaace 1568L Appellant Respondednt

…e learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT versus Reliance Utility & Power Ltd (313 ITR 340 Bom), CIT 17 ITA 2068 /Mum/2016 Essel Propack Limited versus Reliance Industry Ltd (410 ITR 466 SC) and HDFC Bank Versus DCIT (383 ITR 529 Bom).s 18. On the other hand the learned DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 19. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. We have also deliberated on the various case laws relied by learned AR of the assessee. The ld. DRP while confirming the intere…

DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterrises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1799/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Piramal Enterprises Limited Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Piramal Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, Healthcare Limited) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn4538P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 850/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Piramal Enterprises Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Piramal Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Healthcare Limited) Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओि से / Appellant By : Shri A Mohan, Cit Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओि से / Respondent By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal, Ronak Doshi, Ars’ सुनवाई की िािीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2020 घोर्णा की िािीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2020

…tion of the assessee properly. Now, the legal position is fairly well settled by various judicial precedent including the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 that in case 10 | P a g e I TA N o s. 8 5 0 /M um/ 2 0 15 & 1 7 9 9/M um / 20 16 Pir am al E nter pr i s es Li mi ted assessee has sufficient interest free surplus funds available with it, no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is not only b…

Godavari Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09. Godavati Corporation P.Ltd., Vs. D.C.I.T.-1(1), Mumbai Industry House, 159, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Churchgate Reclamation, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 020. Pan Aaacg1850D. Appellant. Respondent.

…Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.HC). Also it is stated that if own funds exceeds the investment made, then no disallowance of interest u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2) be made. In this regard reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the decision in HDFC Bank Ltd. 383 ITR 529 at 542 (Bom. HC) ; CIT vs. Edelweiss Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.HC); Pr. CIT vs. Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd. (2019) 104 taxmann.com 97 (Bom.HC); Pr. CIT vs. Ashok apparels (P) Ltd. (2019) 106 taxmann.com 63 (Bom.HC) Further it is stated that share application moneys not capable of yielding exempt income and thus are to be excluded from the…

Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-5(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4136/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4137/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. Dcit–Circle-5(3)(2) बनाम/ Room No.518, 5Th Floor 10-A, Bakhtawar Nariman Point Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4127-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4743/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4742/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit–Circle-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. Room No.518, 5Th Floor बनाम/ 10-A, Bakhtawar Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4127-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/01/2010 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

…the assessee and therefore the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Varun Shipping Co. Ltd. (17 ITR-Trib. 587) as cited by the assessee would not be applicable. 3.2 Proceeding further, noting the ratio of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in HDFC Bank Ltd. 383 ITR 529 which raises presumption in assessee’s favor that the investment may be presumed to be sourced from own capital, it was noted that own funds of Rs.4115.09 Lacs far exceeded investments of Rs.1336.71 Lacs held by the assessee and therefore, interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) was not justified. However, disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) was confirmed. 3…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…record the financial statement of the assessee‟s Bank as per page no. 286 to 361 of Paper Book. In support of this 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 of t…

Asst CIT(Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanaditya Birla Nuvo Limited, A4, Aditya Birla Center, S.K.Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaaci 1747H ...... Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ltu-1 World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. ..... Respondent Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ltu-1 World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. ..... Appellant

…cover investments, no disallowance u/r.8D(2)(ii) is warranted. In support of his contention ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 (Bom) (2) HDFC Bank Ltd. vs.DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom) 3.3 The third argument made by ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee on the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act was that only those investments which have yielded exempt income should be considered for making disallowance. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee furnished a chart giving details of the sec…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Express Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT 3(2)(1), M/s. The Indian Express Room No.608, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 2nd Floor, Express Tower, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AACCT 1148F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, A.R. Revenue by : Shri V Mohan, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by…

M/S Phl Fininvest Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range-7(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Phl Fininvest Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Piramal Tower, Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Room No. 128A, Vs. Lower Parel (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 013 Mumbai – 400 020

…ssee was out of the interest free funds available with it and no disallowance on the said count would be warranted under Sec. 14A of the Act. The aforesaid view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court had thereafter been reiterated in HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). At this stage, we may herein observe that the Hon‟ble High Court while concluding as hereinabove had observed that where funds are available both interest free and interest bearing, then there would be a presumption that the investment had been made out of the interest free funds available with the assessee. Rather, the Hon‟ble High Court…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

…es as the assessee’s own/non-interest bearing funds far exceed the investments. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  CIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited [Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2019] [ Supreme Court]  CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.)  CIT vs. HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) 50 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 The following decisions laying down the same principle have been referred to in the tabulation filed before the Tribunal on 25.03.2019:  PCIT vs. Spanco Ltd. [ITA No. 488/2016 dt. 26.11.2018] [Bombay High Court]  PCIT vs. JSW Power…

Real Utility Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 6066/Mum/2013 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 7181/Mum/2014 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 7722/Mum/2014 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Crest Logistics & Engineers The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, Circle 10(1), (New Jurisdiction (Erstwhile Rel Utility Engineers Pvt. Dy. Cit 14(3)(1), Mumbai बनाम / Ltd. Formerly Known As Sonata Vs. Investments Ltd.) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaccr7266A आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 5905/Mum/2013 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 6823/Mum/2014 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Crest Logistics & Engineers Tax, Circle 10(1), (New Jurisdiction Private Limited बनाम Dy. Cit 14(3)(1), Mumbai (Erstwhile Rel Utility Engineers / Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known As Vs. Sonata Investments Ltd.) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi, Amit Khatiwala, Ars’ प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Dr

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “D” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील िं./ ITA No. 6066/Mum/2013 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) आयकर अपील िं./ ITA No. 7181/Mum/2014 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आयकर अपील िं./ ITA No. 7722/Mum/2014 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Crest Logistics and Engineers The Dy. Commissioner of Income Private Limited Tax, Circle 10(1), (New Jurisdiction (Erstwhile REL Utility Engine…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 3(4), Central Range-3, Mumbai vs. Sunteck Realty Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Sunteck Realty Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of 5th floor, Sunteck Centre, 37- Vs. Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai. 40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAACI0336E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of M/s Sunteck Realty Ltd., Income Tax CC-3(4), Central Vs. 5th floor, Sunteck Centre, Range-3, Mumbai. 37-40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai- 400051. PAN No. AAACI0336E Appellant Respondent Ass…

Sunteck Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Sunteck Realty Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of 5th floor, Sunteck Centre, 37- Vs. Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai. 40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAACI0336E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of M/s Sunteck Realty Ltd., Income Tax CC-3(4), Central Vs. 5th floor, Sunteck Centre, Range-3, Mumbai. 37-40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai- 400051. PAN No. AAACI0336E Appellant Respondent Ass…

DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathapiramal Enterprise Limited Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(3) (Formerly Known As Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013

…l available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that the co-ordinate bench had an occasion to consider an identical issue and by following the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT (260) (383 ITR 529) (Bom) held that if, own funds are more than the amount of investments in shares and securities, which yield exempt income, then there could not be any disallowances towards interest expenditure. Similarly, the Tribunal further held that insofar as, disallowances of other expenditure, only those investments, which yield exempt income could be con…