GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2482/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 March 2019AY 2005-0622 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict disallowance under Section 14A to 2% of dividend income. For book profits, it also directed the AO to adopt 2% of dividend income for disallowance. The issue of loan waiver was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing, declared NIL income under normal provisions and substantial book profits. The Assessing Officer (AO) made various additions. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted partial relief, leading to cross-appeals.

What were the issues?

The key issues involved disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A, computation of book profits under Section 115JB, taxability of loan waiver, and disallowance for non-deduction of TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 115JB,Section 41(1),Section 28(iv),Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “ K ”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT, Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →