The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai
High Court
05 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
05 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
2007-2008
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2007-2008, following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. “a)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the disallowance made under Section14A...
Decision: 3.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.790 OF 2012
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
HDFC Bank Limited, Mumbai
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Atul K Jasani for the respondent.
P.C. :
1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2007-2008,
following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration.
“a)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the disallowance made under Section14A by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Limited V/s. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom) ?law, the Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the disallowance made under Section14A by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Limited V/s. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom) ?
b)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law by relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Limited V/s. DCIT (2010) 310 ITR 81 (Bom), wherein operation of Rule 8D was made prospective, disregarding the fact that method of law, the Tribunal was correct in law by relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Limited V/s. DCIT (2010) 310 ITR 81 (Bom), wherein operation of Rule 8D was made prospective, disregarding the fact that method of
working of disallowance provided in Rule 8D has been accepted as a reasonable method in the same judgment ?
2.Since the issues raised in this appeal are covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom), we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law.
3.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. Sanklecha, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue