Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 62 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2 ... on 25 February, 2016

Dcit 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs Apcotex Industries Ltd., Raigad on 14 November, 2018

In view of the binding nature of decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Power & Utilities Ltd vs CIT (supra) and HDFC Bank Ltd vs CIT (supra),once the availability of funds is established even though there is borrowed funds, then a general presumption is drawn in favour of the assessee that investment is made out of own funds. Therefore, the question of disallowance of interest expenses does not arise. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete disallowance made towards interest expenses u/r 8D(2)(ii) of I.T. Rules, 1962.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit Cc 1(1), Mumbai, Mumbai vs Ecap Securities And Investment Ltd., ... on 30 September, 2024

Pr. CIT v Lemon Tree Hotels (P) Ltd. (2019) 104 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi)  Goldman Sachs (1) Securities (P) Ltd. v ACIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 337 (Mumbai ITAT) 50 Page | 50 ITA No.2965/MUM/2024 & CO No. 132/M/2024 ECAP Securities and Investment Ltd.; A. Y.2018-19  HDFC Bank Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2015) 61 taxmann.com 361 (Mumbai (TAT)  Bharti Airtel Ltd. v Addi CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 50 (URO) (Delhi (TAT)  Cera Sanitaryware Ltd v DCIT [2016] 68 taxmann.com 433 (Ahmedabad ITAT)  Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd v ACIT [2014] 51 taxmann.com 136 (Hyderabad ITAT)  Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v ACIT [2015] 53 taxmann.com 333 (Hyderabad ITAT)  Apollo Health Street v Dy. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 507 (Hyderabad ITAT)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shree Sharada Sahakari Bank Ltd.,, Pune vs Income-Tax Officer,, on 23 June, 2017

In view of the facts of the case and the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. (supra) we deem it appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to ascertain the availability of interest free funds of the assessee from the financial records of the assessee company. In case it is found that the assessee was having sufficient interest free funds during the relevant period to cover the investments, disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Dharamveer Sambhaji Urban Co-Op. ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 13 June, 2018

8. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of Authorities below. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 8,37,247/- in the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. The assessee has not made any suo-moto disallowance in respect of expenditure incurred for earning interest free income. The contention of assessee is that no direct or indirect expenditure was incurred for earning tax free income. As far as interest 4 ITA No. 1569/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11 expenditure is concerned, it has been pointed that own interest free funds of the assessee in the form of Paid-up of Share Capital and Reserves are much more than the investment made. This fact is evident from Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2010 furnished by the ld. AR of the assessee. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra.) has held that where the assessee is having own funds, as well as interest bearing funds, presumption would be that the assessee has made investment out of interest free funds available with the assessee and hence, no disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T Rules is called for.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit Cc 3(3), Mumbai on 3 July, 2018

ITA Nos.469, 469, 1187 & 1188/Mum/2017 (HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2016] 45 ITR (Trib) 529 (Mumbai)), the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal relating to the assessment year 2008-09 on the issue of applicability of section 14A of the Act to disallow a portion of the interest paid on borrowed funds in respect of investments made in tax-free securities. This when it has own funds in excess of investments made in the securities and further these securities are held as stock-in- trade. This dismissal of the appeal, submit the petitioner, in spite of the issue being concluded on both the grounds in its favour by the binding decisions of this court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.D. Cotton P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit 3(1)(1), Mumbai on 31 October, 2018

17. Since, the Ld. CIT (A) has directed the AO to verify the eligibility in the light of the findings of the coordinate Bench in the case of IVF Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) to interfere with. We accordingly uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to verify the transactions in terms of the directions of the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, this ground of appeal of the revenue is treated as dismissed. CO No. 258/MUM/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The assessee has filed the cross objection against the impugned order on the following effective grounds:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit 2(1), Mumbai vs Tata Motors Ltd ( Earlier Known As Tata ... on 31 August, 2017

The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) held that while considering disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) the application of Section 14A of the Act would apply. Considering the fact that no interest bearing funds were utilized in earning the exempt income. Thus, no interest disallowance can be made while disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 33 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

The South Indian Bank Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 September, 2021

In HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax4, the assessee was a Scheduled Bank and the issue therein also pertained to disallowance under Section 14A. In this case, the Bombay High Court even while remanding the case back to Tribunal for adjudicating afresh observed (relying on its own previous judgment in same assessee’s case for a different Assessment Year) that, if assessee possesses sufficient interest free funds as against investment in tax free securities then, there is a presumption that investment which 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 101 - H Roy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next