[aaykarbhavan] Judgments and Infomration , F Y I Not of any professional Interest at all [1 Attachment]

Benefits Of Drinking Warm Lemon Water

 

The way you start each day is incredibly important. Whether you're a mom, a coach, a writer, a small business owner or a yoga teacher, what you do first thing in the morning matters.  According to Ayurvedic philosophy, choices that you make regarding your daily routine either build up resistance to disease or tear it down.  Ayurveda invites us to get a jump-start on the day by focusing on morning rituals that work to align the body with nature's rhythms, balance the doshas and foster self-esteem alongside self-discipline. Your mind may say you have to check emails, take the dog out, get the kids out the door, that you can't be late for work or that you just don't have enough time to cultivate your own morning rituals. But, if you can only make time for one ritual that will improve your health, let it be this..... Start the day out with a mug of warm water and the juice of half a lemon.  It's so simple and the benefits are just too good to ignore. Warm water with lemon:     1. Boosts you're immune system  Lemons are high in Vitamin C and potassium. Vitamin C is great for fighting colds and potassium stimulates brain nerve function and helps control blood pressure.  2. Balances pH  Lemons are an incredibly alkaline food, believe it or not. Yes, they are acidic on their own, but inside our bodies they're alkaline (the citric acid does not create acidity in the body once metabolized). As you wellness warriors know, an alkaline body is really the key to good health.   3. Helps with weight loss  Lemons are high in pectin fiber, which helps fight hunger cravings. It also has been shown that people who maintain a more alkaline diet lose weight faster. And, my experience is that when I start the day off right, it's easier to make the best choices for myself the rest of the day.  4. Aids digestion  The warm water serves to stimulate the gastrointestinal tract and peristalsis—the waves of muscle contractions within the intestinal walls that keep things moving. Lemons and limes are also high in minerals and vitamins and help loosen AMA, or toxins, in the digestive tract.   5. Acts as a gentle, natural diuretic  Lemon juice helps flush out unwanted materials because lemons increase the rate of urination in the body. Toxins are, therefore, released at a faster rate which helps keep your urinary tract healthy.  6. Clears skin  The vitamin C helps decrease wrinkles and blemishes. Lemon water purges toxins from the blood which helps keep skin clear as well.     7. Hydrates the lymph system  This cup of goodness helps start the day on a hydrated note, which helps prevent dehydration (obviously) and adrenal fatigue. When your body is dehydrated, or deeply dehydrated (adrenal fatigue) it can't perform all of it's proper functions, which leads to toxic buildup, stress, constipation, and the list goes on. Your adrenals happen to be two small glands that sit on top of your kidneys, and along with your thyroid, create energy. They also secrete important hormones, including aldosterone. Aldosterone is a hormone secreted by your adrenals that regulates water levels and the concentration of minerals, like sodium, in your body, helping you stay hydrated. Your adrenals are also responsible for regulating your stress response. So, the bottom line is that you really don't want to mess with a deep state of dehydration!   Adopting just this one practice of drinking a cup of warm water with lemon in the morning for a month can radically alter your experience of the day. Don't be surprised if you begin to view mornings in a new light.  Like I said, the recipe is really simple - a cup of warm (not hot) water and the juice from half a lemon.

HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on October 8, 2015 — 2 Comments ↓

COURT:	ITAT Mumbai
CORAM:	D. Manmohan VP, Sanjay Arora (AM)
SECTION(S):	14A, Rule 8D
GENRE:	Domestic Tax
CATCH WORDS:	Disallowance u/s 14 & Rule 8D, exempt income
COUNSEL:	Yogesh Thar
DATE:	September 23, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE:	October 8, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY:	2008-09
FILE:	Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: (i) Presumption laid down in HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that investments in tax-free securities must be deemed to have come out of own funds and (ii) Law laid down in India Advantage (Bom) that s. 14A and Rule 8D does not apply to securities held as stock-in-trade cannot be applied as both propositions are contrary to Godrej & Boyce 328 ITR 81 (Bom)

In AY 2008-09, the assessee claimed that no disallowance u/s 14A and Rule 8D could be made on the basis that (i) the tax-free investments were made out of interest-free funds and not out of borrowed funds and (ii) the tax-free investments were held as stock-in-trade. In support of the submissions, the assessee relied on CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) (its own case) and CIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd. (in IT Appeal No. 1131 of 2013 dated 13.04.2015. HELD by the Tribunal rejecting both contentions:

(i) The assessee has before us also relied on the decision in its own case reported at [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The said decision stands rendered following the decision by the hon'ble court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom). The said (latter) decision stands in fact duly considered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce (supra). It was clarified by it that the said decision was rendered on a finding of fact by the tribunal that there were sufficient interest-free funds available (para 86). The decision in HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) is again rendered on the basis of the facts of the case as being covered by the judgment in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. The question, with respect, as explained in Godrej & Boyce (supra), is not of the availability of the funds per se, but whether it could be said that it was only these funds that had gone to fund the relevant investments, i.e., in view of the statutory presumption cast by section 14A. The decision in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), it must be appreciated and noted, is in context of section 36(1)(iii), the parameters of which are different. Further, in the facts of that case, even as explained by its counsel in HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra), the company was able to show that the investments with reference to which the disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) was sought to be made by the Revenue were strategic investments in two companies of the same group, out of self generated funds. The utilization of borrowed capital was shown as utilized toward capital expenditure and inter-corporate deposits, both yielding taxable income, so that no part of the interest bearing funds had gone in the investment of the said two companies. In fact, the hon'ble court in Godrej & Boyce (supra) goes to the extent of stating that the fact that the assessee has utilized its own funds in making the investments would not be dispositive of the question of whether the assessee has incurred the expenditure in relation to earning such (tax-free) income. Even if, therefore, it had utilized its own funds for making investment which had resulted in income not forming part of the total income under the Act, the expenditure which is incurred in earning the income would have to be disallowed. The matter stands duly discussed, reproducing the relevant part of the said decision, i.e., in Godrej & Boyce (supra), both in D. H. Securities (P) Ltd. and Damani Estates & Finance (P.) Ltd. We have already noted the inability of the assessee to exhibit the exact funding of the tax-free investments under reference, acquired over the years in the course of its business, so that in the absence of leading evidence toward the same with reference to its accounts, as provided u/s.14A(2), the disallowance u/s. 14A(1) r/w rule 8D shall hold. It may be noted that this was precisely the fact situation in Dhanuka & Sons, leading the Hon'ble Court to, following Godrej & Boyce, uphold the invocation of rule 8D. We may clarify that we are conscious that the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us, so that the issue before us reduces to ascertaining as to which of the two decisions by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, i.e., in the case of Godrej & Boyce or HDFC Bank Ltd, is to be followed. We have already clarified that the decision in the latter case was based on the finding of a parity of facts with the decision in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. We are unable to issue any finding qua the facts of the present case, i.e., other than as to the securities under reference being acquired over a period of time and, further, from the common pool of funds, accessed and generated, as available with it at the relevant time. No doubt, the bulk of investments are acquired by the assessee as a successor in business. The same, rather, further endorses the said finding; the assessee-bank acquiring these assets, along with other assets and a range of liabilities, as a successor-in-business. Again, the said decision, unlike in the case of Godrej & Boyce, does not dilate on the scope and parameters of section 14A, but considers the ratio arising out of the decision in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., which is in the context of section 36(1)(iii) and, even more importantly, considered in Godrej & Boyce. In view of the foregoing, the same becomes distinguishable, so that we decide the issue following the binding decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce, as found and explained by the tribunal in the case of D. H. Securities (P.) Ltd, a decision by its larger constitution.

(ii) In our view, it was incumbent on the parties to have brought its' decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce to the notice of the Hon'ble Court in HDFC Bank Ltd.. We are conscious that we are deciding an appeal in the case of the same assessee. So, however, we are deciding a purely legal issue, i.e., whether, in view of the statutory presumption cast by section 14A, a non obstante provision, a presumption on facts could obtain, or that the assessee shall have to establish the same with reference to its accounts, in terms of section 14A(2) r/w s. 14A(3), leading to a satisfaction or otherwise of the assessing authority, arrived at objectively, only to find the earlier decision in Godrej & Boyce (supra) as having addressed the said issue. Further, that the facts in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., which was even otherwise in respect of allowance of expenditure u/s.36(1)(iii) – a provision which does not mandate any apportionment per se, stood established, with in fact the said decision having been considered in Godrej & Boyce. As such, there being no estoppel against law, we consider ourselves as legally justified in following the said decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, address as it does, in our opinion, the issue at hand, and is thus squarely applicable, even as found in Dhanuka & Sons (supra), D. H. Securities (P) Ltd. (supra); and Damani Estates & Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra). These also constitute the binding reasons for not following the decision by the tribunal in Dy. CIT (OSD) vs. Shri Durga Capital Ltd. (in ITA No. 7405/Mum/2011 dated 03.08.2015/copy on record), also relied upon before us, in-as-much as we find no statement of law ascribed to India Advantage Securities Ltd. (supra); the Hon'ble Court therein holding the appeal before it to not raise any substantial question of law. Further, there is, no reference to the binding decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce (supra), or by the tribunal in D. H. Securities (P) Ltd. (supra) as well as Damani Estates & Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra), explaining the said decision, as well as its bearing on the decision by the larger bench of the tribunal in Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (infra), in Shri Dura Capital Ltd. (supra).

(iii) Dividend income, in the case of a dealer in shares, as afore-noted, is of the same species as the share trading income, arise as it does from the same principal activity of trading in shares, which yields two types of income, i.e., the profit on the purchase and sale of shares, and by way of dividend income on the shares held as stock-in-trade for the time being. Like-wise, for a bank (or any other assessee) who may deal in shares or other tax-free investments as a part of its regular business activity. The same composite business yielding two streams of income, taxable and tax-exempt, apportionment of the expenses of the business would be required to be made in terms of sec. 14A r/w r. 8D, which rule is mandatory from the current year. Not so doing would be to defeat and, rather, contrary to the clear mandate of section 14A. On what basis, one may ask, could the expenses of the business be attributed only to one stream of income thereof? The issue of apportionment gets settled per Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra), even as noted in Godrej & Boyce, both binding precedents for us, and it is therefore immaterial whether the shares are held as investment or stock-in-trade, both being assets of a composite business giving rise to two sets of income. This also represents the view of the tribunal per its larger bench decision in Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which stands impliedly approved by the Hon'ble Court in Godrej & Boyce (supra), as well as the reading of the said decision per other decisions noted here-in-before. Unless, therefore, a decision by a larger Bench of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, taking a different view, is brought to our notice, we are legally obliged to follow the same. The decision in India Advantage Securities Ltd. clarifies, in sum and substance, of no substantial question of law arising per the said appeal. In fact, a statement of law, if any, that can be said to be issued by the Hon'ble Court, is when it states that one can at best disallow the expenses which are incurred for earning dividend income, at para 4 of its decision, clearly an unqualified observation. No doubt, it mentions of investments, but that by itself does not mean to the exclusion of others where the same also give rise to dividend income. In fact, the Hon'ble Court approves the disallowance u/s.14A at 10% of the dividend income, i.e., a measure independent and, in any case, different from 'investment'. It is even otherwise settled law that it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or sentence from the decision and read it to be the ratio of the decision, which alone, being the pronouncement of law, is binding, and is absent in-as-much as the Hon'ble Court unequivocally states of no question of law arising per the said appeal. The disallowance, thus confirmed, is without reference to rule 8D, which only bears the word 'investment' – in the context of valuation – and, accordingly, the tribunal's decision in India Advantage Securities Ltd. (supra) must also be considered as having been rendered in the facts of the case and not as not laying down any proposition of law. In fact, the same also does not consider the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce, followed by us, for the reasons afore-stated, also explained by the tribunal per its other decisions, including by its larger constitution.

Related Judgements

1. CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (Bombay High Court) 
   No s. 14A disallowance of interest paid on borrowings if assessee's own funds and non-interest bearing funds exceeds investment in tax-free securities
   In principle, if there are funds available, both interest-free and over draft and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of…
2. CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd (Bombay High Court) 
   Loss on account of depreciation in value of securities held as stock is not notional & is allowable as a deduction
   A method of accounting adopted by the taxpayer consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the Departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a…
3. HDFC Bank Limited vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) 
   The manner in which and the ground on which an adjustment of the refund was made is arbitrary and contrary to law. The stay order states that the assessee would not be treated as an assessee in default in respect of covered issues. Yet the department has proceeded to…
4. D. H. Securities Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) (Third Member) 
   S. 14A & Rule 8D disallowance applies to tax-free securities held as stock-in-trade
   It is accepted by both parties that the assessee is a dealer in shares and that the shares were held by it as stock-in-trade. The issue under appeal is squarely covered by the principles laid…
5. JM Financial Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 
   No s. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance for investment in shares of subsidiaries & Joint Ventures
   In AY 2009-10, the assessee has specifically raised a point before the AO that 97.82% of the investment is in subsidiary companies and joint venture companies and, therefore, no expenditure was incurred for maintaining…

HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 14A/ Rule 8D: (i) Presumption laid down in HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that investments in tax-free securities must be deemed to have come out of own funds and (ii) Law laid down in India Advantage (Bom) that s. 14A and Rule 8D does not apply to securities held as stock-in-trade cannot be applied as both propositions are contrary to Godrej & Boyce 328 ITR 81 (Bom)

In our view, it was incumbent on the parties to have brought its' decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce to the notice of the Hon'ble Court in HDFC Bank Ltd.. We are conscious that we are deciding an appeal in the case of the same assessee. So, however, we are deciding a purely legal issue, i.e., whether, in view of the statutory presumption cast by section 14A, a non obstante provision, a presumption on facts could obtain, or that the assessee shall have to establish the same with reference to its accounts, in terms of section 14A(2) r/w s. 14A(3), leading to a satisfaction or otherwise of the assessing authority, arrived at objectively, only to find the earlier decision in Godrej & Boyce (supra) as having addressed the said issue. Further, that the facts in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., which was even otherwise in respect of allowance of expenditure u/s.36(1)(iii) – a provision which does not mandate any apportionment per se, stood established, with in fact the said decision having been considered in Godrej & Boyce. As such, there being no estoppel against law, we consider ourselves as legally justified in following the said decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, address as it does, in our opinion, the issue at hand, and is thus squarely applicable, even as found in Dhanuka & Sons (supra), D. H. Securities (P) Ltd. (supra); and Damani Estates & Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra). These also constitute the binding reasons for not following the decision by the tribunal in Dy. CIT (OSD) vs. Shri Durga Capital Ltd. (in ITA No. 7405/Mum/2011 dated 03.08.2015/copy on record), also relied upon before us, in-as-much as we find no statement of law ascribed to India Advantage Securities Ltd. (supra); the Hon'ble Court therein holding the appeal before it to not raise any substantial question of law. Further, there is, no reference to the binding decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce (supra), or by the tribunal in D. H. Securities (P) Ltd. (supra) as well as Damani Estates & Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra), explaining the said decision, as well as its bearing on the decision by the larger bench of the tribunal in Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (infra), in Shri Dura Capital Ltd

__._,_.___

View attachments on the web

---

Posted by: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com>

---

receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Visit Your Group

• New Members 1

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use