ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI V. SAVITA OIL TEHCNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2986/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0119 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAI PRATAP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIV PRAKASH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2986/MUM/2015 : A.Y : 2010 - 11 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8(4), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 66 - 67, NARIMAN BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. PAN : AAACS7934A (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAI PRATAP SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIV PRAKASH DATE OF HEARING : 30/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /08/2017 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU , AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 50, MUMBAI DATED 28.02.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 30.3.2013 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN ITS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 2 ITA NO. 2986/MUM/2015 M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS J USTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4)(IV) IN RESPECT THE WINDMILLS UNITS AFTER AVAILING ON ALL THE UNITS DEPRECIATION BENEFITS U/S. 80IA FOR 100 PERCENT DEDUCTION ON ELIGIBLE PROFIT IN THE INITIAL YEARS AND AFTER THE COSTS ARE DEPRECIATED ? 2) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA THAT THE RECEIPT IN THE NATURE OF CARBON CREDIT ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE AND NOT L IABLE TO BE TAXED ALTHOUGH NOT DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE QUANTUM CREDIT ? 3) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO AT RS.9,81,130/ - AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE U/S 14 R.W.S. 8D OF RS. 6,32,214/ - AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN ? THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3 . THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS, INTER - ALIA , ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF TRANSFORMER OILS, LUBRICATING OILS AND OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCTS BESIDES GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY FROM WIND MILLS. 4 . INSOFAR AS THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.6,71,25,876/ - U/S 80IA(4)(IV) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE WIND MILL UNITS. NOTABLY, ASSESSEE OWNS SIX WIND MILL UNITS SITUATED IN THE STATES OF MAHARASHTRA, KARNATAKA AND TAMIL NADU. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PROFIT OF THE WIND MILL UNITS WERE NOT CORRECTLY WOR KED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AS 3 ITA NO. 2986/MUM/2015 M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ACCORDING TO HIM , THE LOSSES IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO THE INITIAL YEAR, THOUGH THE SAME HAD BEEN OTHERWISE SET - OFF AGAINST THE OTHER INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THOSE RESPECTIVE YEARS, WERE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION I N VIEW OF SEC. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO WORK OUT THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(IV) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE PROFITS OF THE SIX RESPECTIVE UNITS AS PER HIS INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 80IA(5) OF THE AC T AND ARRIVED AT A FIGURE OF LOSS IN RESPECT OF FOUR OUT OF THE SIX UNITS AND CONSEQUENTLY, DENIED ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,25,99,585/ - . NOTABLY, THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN REDUCED TO RS.4,02,23,291/ - BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N ACCOUNT OF RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE. 5 . BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND POINTED OUT THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT, AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V E LAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD., 340 ITR 477 (MAD) AND OTHER JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, ONLY THE LOSSES OF THE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE INITIAL YEAR AND THE YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO SUCH INITIAL YEAR HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE W ORKING OUT THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(IV) OF THE ACT. PERTINENTLY, THE CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V E LAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND A HOST OF OTHER DECISIONS RE FERRED TO IN HIS ORDER, AND CONCLUDED THAT THE INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE AFFIRMED. AGAINST SUCH A DECISION OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 ITA NO. 2986/MUM/2015 M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 6 . PERTINENTLY, SEC. 80IA OF THE ACT, SO FAR AS IS RELEVANT FOR OUR PUR POSE, PRESCRIBES FOR DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 100% OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN U NDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE FROM AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. SUB - SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80IA OF THE ACT FURTHER PRESCRIBES THAT THE DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE, AT HIS OPTION, FOR ANY TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OUT OF FIFTEEN YEARS (TWENTY YEARS IN CERTAIN CASES) BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE U NDERTAKING COMMENCES OPERATION, BEGINS DEVELOPMENT OR STARTS PROVIDING SERVICES, ETC. AS STIPULATED IN T HE SECTION. SUB - SECTION (5) OF SEC. 80IA OF THE ACT, WHICH IS THE BONE OF CONTENTION BEFORE US, PRESCRIBES THE MANNER OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION W ITH REFERENCE TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR . THE SAID SECTION READS AS UNDER : - 80 - IA (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (1) APPLY SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SUB - SECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, BE COMPUTED AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT Y EAR AND TO EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR UP TO AND INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE DETERMINATION IS TO BE MADE. IN THE ABOVE SECTION, THE INTERPRETATION TO THE EXPRESSION INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR PLACED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THE YEA R IN WHICH THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS/MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY HAD COMMENCED OPERATIONS . SO HOWEVER, THE INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR REFERS TO THE YEAR IN WHICH 5 ITA NO. 2986/MUM/2015 M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. THE ASSESSEE CHOOSES TO START CLAIMING DEDUCTION AS MANDATED IN SUB - SECTION (2) OF SEC. 80IA OF THE ACT. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE LOSSES INCURRED IN THE RESPECTIVE UNITS IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO THE YEAR IN WHICH ASSESSEE OPTED TO START CLAIMING DED UCTION IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. SO HOWEVER, AS PER THE ASSESSEE , IT IS ONLY THE LOSSES STARTING FROM THE INITIAL YEAR, I.E. THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND THEREAFTER, WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERA TION FOR ARRIVING AT PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. FACTUALLY SPEAKING, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT SO FAR AS LOSSES CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE CONCERNED, THEY HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN ABSORBED AGAINST OTHER INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS . THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND EVEN BEFORE US, NO CONTRARY DECISION OF ANY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN RELIED U PON BY THE REVENUE. APART THEREFROM, WE FIND THAT THE STAND OF THE REVENUE IS CLEARLY IN CONTRAST TO THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO. 1/2016 DATED 15.2.2016. THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR IS RELEVANT : - THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE BOARD. IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM SUB - SECTION (2) THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IA HAS THE OPTION TO CHOOSE THE INITIAL/ FIRST YEAR FROM WHICH IT MAY DESIRE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR TEN CON SECUTIVE YEARS, OUT OF A SLAB OF FIFTEEN (OR TWENTY) YEARS, AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THAT SUB - SECTION. IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT ONCE SUCH INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IA FOR TEN CON SECUTIVE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE HAS EXERCISED SUCH OPTION SUBJECT TO THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE SECTION. HENCE, THE TERM 6 ITA NO. 2986/MUM/2015 M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' WOULD MEAN THE FIRST YEAR OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CL AIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. HOWEVER, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF YEARS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT TRANSGRESS THE PRESCRIBED SLAB OF FIFTEEN OR TWENTY YEARS, AS THE CASE MAY BE AND THE PERIOD OF CLAIM SHOULD BE AVAILED IN CONTINUITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS A RE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CLARIFICATION AND AFTER BEING SATISFIED THAT ALL THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS APPLICABLE IN A PARTICULAR CASE ARE DULY SATISFIED. PENDING LITIGATION ON ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 8 0 IA SHALL ALSO NOT BE PURSUED TO THE EXTENT IT RELATES TO INTERPRETING 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' AS MENTIONED IN SUB SECTION (5) OF THAT SECTION FOR WHICH THE STANDING COUNSELS/D.R.S BE SUITABLY INSTRUCTED. 7 . QUITE CLEARLY, AS PER THE CBDT, THE TERM I NITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR USED IN SEC. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THE FIRST YEAR OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. CONSIDER ED IN THIS LIGHT ALSO, WE FIND NO ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THAT EVEN THE PENDING LITIGATIONS ON THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT SHOULD ALSO NOT BE PURSUED TO THE EXTENT IT RELATES TO INTERPRETATION OF THE EXP RESSION INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR CONTAINED IN SEC. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE PROSECUTION OF THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CBDT AND, THEREFORE, ON THIS COUNT ALSO WE FIND N O MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 8 . INSOFAR AS GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO THE NATURE AND TAXABILITY OF INCOME EARNED ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF 7 ITA NO. 2986/MUM/2015 M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. CARBON CREDIT. AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE , THE RECEIPT OF RS. 2,01,68,049/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF CARBON CREDIT WAS CONSIDERED AS A REVENUE INCOME AND NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 80IA OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE, INTER - ALIA , ASSERTED THAT THE SAID RECEIPT WAS IN THE NATU RE OF A CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS IT WAS NEITHER DERIVED FROM BUSINESS NOR IT WAS AN OFF - SHOOT OF THE ACTIVITY OF BUSINESS AND THAT IT WAS AN OFF - SHOOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN S AND NOT CONNECTED WITH ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MY HOME POWER LIMITED, 365 ITR 82 (AP) AND HELD THAT THE RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF CARBON CREDIT WAS A CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. AGAINST SUCH A DECISION OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. BEFORE US, ALTHOUGH THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF CIT(A), BUT NO DECISION CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BEFORE US. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE AND HRA PRADESH HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) IS A BINDING DECISION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER CONTRARY DECISION OF EITHER THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR ANY OTHER HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT AND REVENUE F AILS ON THIS GROUND. 10. BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT TO RS.6,32,214/ - AS SUO MOTU DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,81, 130/ - DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE INSTANT YEAR, ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAD EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF 8 ITA NO. 2986/MUM/2015 M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. RS.1,40,61,076/ - , WHICH WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(34) AND 10(35) OF THE ACT AS ALSO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE TUNE OF RS.23,36,562/ - , WHICH WAS EXEM PT U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES) AND COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AT RS.9,81,130/ - AND SINCE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SUO MOTU DISA LLOWED A SUM OF RS.6,32,214/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,48,916/ - WAS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME. THE DISALLOWANCE WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS COMPRISING OF RS.3,74,411/ - OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES AND RS.6,06,719/ - OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AS PER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES. 11. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE CANVASSED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT OWN INTEREST - FREE FUNDS TO COVER THE INVESTMENTS IN THE EXEMPT INSTRUMENTS AND, THEREFOR E, THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DISALLOWANCE. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HDFC BANK LTD., (2014) 107 DTR (BOM) 140 . THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PROPOSITION ENUNCIATED I N THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD., 313 ITR 340 (BOM) BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WAS CLEARLY ATTRACTED AND THE SAME WAS ALSO APPLICABLE IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) . ACCORDINGLY, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. INSOFAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WAS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE 9 ITA NO. 2986/MUM/2015 M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES WAS MORE THAN THE NET DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF RS.3,48,916/ - , AND , THUS DIRECTED THAT NO FURTHER DISALLOWANC E WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,32,214/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. AGAINST SUCH A DECISION OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 1 2 . BEFORE US, THERE IS NO COGENT MATERIAL OR REASONING LED BY THE REVENUE TO DISLODGE THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS COMPRISING OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES & SURPLUS WERE MUCH MORE THAN THE INVESTMENTS IN THE EXE MPT INSTRUMENTS AND, THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) MADE NO MISTAKE IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) CLEARLY COVERS THE CO NTROVERSY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT ALSO. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 1 3 . RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 T H AUGUST, 2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAVISH SOOD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 2 8 T H AUGUST , 201 7 *SSL* 10 ITA NO. 2986/MUM/2015 M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, A BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI