Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (2.28 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax I vs Uti Bank Ltd Through Its Manager on 7 February, 2014

Concord Biotech Limited, , Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 30 June, 2014

section 14A of the Act which was confirmed in appeal by the DRP. The argument of the Authorized Representative of the assessee that the assessee had interest free own funds of Rs 6,44,02,630/- and therefore, investment made during the year of Rs 1,14,36,151/- was out of assessee's interest free own funds and no disallowance for interest expenditure was called for u/s. 14A of the Act. He has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (I) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of CIT Vs. UTI Bank Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that where the assessee's interest free funds exceed investment made for earning dividend income, disallowance u/s. 14A was not justified.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs Adsum Offshore Diving Contractors ... on 15 March, 2017

"Since the expenditure was incurred by the appellant with a intention to protect its business interest it was purely a commercial decision to avoid further litigation in the international court where the legal cost must have exceeded the compensation paid. Therefore, respectfully following judgments of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sinnar Bidi Udyog Ltd. (supra) and Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. (supra), appeal of the appeals is allowed and disallowance of Rs. 94,50,000/- made by the AO is deleted."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs Gujarat State Financial Services ... on 6 December, 2016

Similar proposition has been restated by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.370 (Guj.); SLP filed by the Revenue against which has been dismissed. It is also pertinent to say that for attracting section 14A of the Act there has to be a proximate cause for disallowance which was direct or indirect relationship with the tax-free income. The assessee in the instant case has crossed the test of proximate cause in the sense that the interest-free own funds at the disbursal of the assessee are admittedly in excess of the investments in securities giving rise to the income which is not includible in the total income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Bank Of Maharasthra, Pune vs Assessee on 17 September, 2014

In fact, as has been noted by the Tribunal in its order dated 30.05.2014 (supra), the aforesaid presumption laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also been found applicable by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd., (2013) 32 taxmann.com 370 (Gujarat) in the context of application of section 14A of the Act. Therefore, in 43 ITA No.79/PN/2012 ITA No.521/PN/2013 the aforesaid background, the plea canvassed by the assessee cannot be shut out. In its order dated 30.05.2014 (supra), the Tribunal had accepted the aforesaid propositions in-principle which is to the effect that if the investments which have yielded the tax-free incomes are out of interest-free funds available with the assessee, then no part of interest expenditure can be said to have been incurred in relation to earning of such exempt income for the purposes of application of section 14A of the Act. We find that no reason to depart from the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in its order dated 30.05.2014 (supra) for assessment year 2002-03. However, both the lower authorities have rejected the aforesaid assertions of the assessee without putting it to any verification exercise in the context of the facts of the instant year. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with directions to verify the assertion of the assessee and thereafter, allow the appropriate relief in so far as it relates to the component of interest expenditure disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and only thereafter he shall pass an appropriate order on this issue as per law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asha Lalit Kanodia, Mumbai vs Assessee on 17 February, 2016

Two, and more importantly, the assessee is one entity, undertaking both, business - yielding taxable income, and investments - yielding both taxable and tax-free incomes. The manner or the account from which common expenditure, i.e., which could be ascribed to both sets of activities, is incurred or routed, is immaterial, being borne by and claimed by the assessee. Further, the personal balance-sheet includes investment in business (M/s. Datamatics Financial Software Services Ltd.) at Rs.265.53 lacs, which includes investments held in the books of the business. The argument is thus not valid. Further, there is no incurring and, consequently, disallowance of interest expenditure, direct or indirect, so that the plea of the investments being financed by own capital is to no consequence. The assessee has, besides the two decisions afore-discussed, also relied upon the other decisions as well, viz. CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 370 (Guj); CIT vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals ltd. [2013] 217 Taxman 343 (Guj); CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 338 (Del) and Dy. CIT vs. Jammu & Kashmi Bank ltd. [2013] 142 ITD 553 (Amritsar-Trib).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs Assessee on 1 June, 2016

24. With regard to the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules on interest expenditure, the Revenue does not dispute the facts with regard to availability of own funds of the Assessee i.e. aggregate of capital and reserve and surplus as on 31.03.2008 amounting to Rs.5,221.04 crores. The Revenue also does not dispute that the total investment in shares, units of mutual funds and tax free bonds as on 31st March 2008 was only Rs.885.89 crores (i.e. Rs.376.19 crores + Rs.224.12 crores + Rs.285.58 crores). Thus, the investment in tax free instruments was much less than the bank's own fund as on 31.03.2008. Reference in this regard was made to the following decisions for the proposition that overall availability of interest free funds have to be seen before making disallowance u/s.14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the rules. (i) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom); (ii) CIT Vs. UTI Bank (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 370 and (iii) CIT Vs. Gujarat Power Corporation 352 ITR 583 (Guj.) laying down identical proposition. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the disallowance of interest expenses under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules of Rs.50,29,36,092 cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be deleted. The conclusions to the contrary by the CIT(A) are not sustainable in view of the judicial pronouncements referred to above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next