1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

247 CTR 162High Court2012#2166 most cited
53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT · 247 CTR 162 · Section 14A · disallowance of expenditure · exempt income · Section 10(34) · Section 10(38) · business deductions · Section 36(1)(iii) · Section 80IA

Sections most often in play

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 14A(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80iabsection 36(l)(iii)section 10(2)section 36(l)wholly and exclusively for businessdeduction u/s 80iaput to usesection 80iasection 36(1)(iii)capital expendituresection 28section 36(1)

Judgments citing 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT-Circle-5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2500/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 2500/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Pan: Aaace6906E) Circle-5, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Girish Sharma, FCA, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Choudhury, JCIT
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14A

…1 Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, AM & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM] I.T.A No. 2500/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AAACE6906E) Circle-5, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 16.11.2016 Date of pronouncement: 14.12.2016 For the Appellant: Shri Girish Sharma, FCA, AR For the Respondent: Shri Amitabha Choudhury, JCIT ORDER Per Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM: This appeal by assessee is arising out of revision order of Ld. CIT-VI, Kolk…

Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 837/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthavaleFor Respondent: Shri Prasad Bapat
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ITA No.2183/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-2007) Mahindra Lifespace Developers Vs ACIT, 6(3), Mumbai Ltd., . 5th Floor, Mahindra Towers, Road No.13, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 PAN/GIR No. : AAACG8904C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Athavale Revenue by : Shri Prasad Bapat Date of Hearing : 27/07/2016 Date of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2005-2006, 2006-2…

Mahendra Lifespace Developers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 2183/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthavaleFor Respondent: Shri Prasad Bapat
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ITA No.2183/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-2007) Mahindra Lifespace Developers Vs ACIT, 6(3), Mumbai Ltd., . 5th Floor, Mahindra Towers, Road No.13, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 PAN/GIR No. : AAACG8904C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Athavale Revenue by : Shri Prasad Bapat Date of Hearing : 27/07/2016 Date of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2005-2006, 2006-2…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by revenue is dismissed whereas Cross objection filed by assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 4688/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman

…egard to the incorrectness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. At this stage, we may also touch-upon a similar view expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT, (2012) 247 CTR 162 (Del), wherein reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra). As per the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the requirement of the Assessing Officer embarking respect of such expenditure. According to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, sub-section (2) of section 14A of the…

The Laxmi Salt Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2434/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri N. Acharya Baduri, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Das, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…1 The Laxmi Salt Co. Ltd. AY 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM] I.T.A No. 2434/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Laxmi Salt Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-4(1), Kolkata (PAN: AAACT9721G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 28.07.2016 Date of pronouncement: 23.09.2016 For the Appellant: Shri N. Acharya Baduri, AR For the Respondent: Shri S.M. Das, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM: This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-IV, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 220/CIT(A)-IV/11-12 dat…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Management Service Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 85/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sumit Kumar Bansal, CA
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 14A

…no ground on the part of the Ld. AO for summarily rejecting the contentions of the appellant. The provision of Rule 8D could not have been invoked without any cogent grounds in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Maxopp Investment: 247 CTR 162. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO is not sustainable, hence the addition on this ground is deleted.” 3 ITA No.85/Del./2014 Being aggrieved from the above order regarding deletion of addition of Rs.1,04,08,582/-, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. On the other…

D.C.I.T Cir - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S Phillips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

ITA 2123/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tion (2) of section 14A before the Assessing Officer proceeds to apply the method prescribed under sub-rule (2)” .. (emphasis supplied). 13. The same opinion was expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd and Others v. CIT 247 CTR 162 wherein reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd 326 ITR 1 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Company Ltd vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81). The relevant portions of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court are as under:…

Dipsc Limited, Kolkata vs. J.C.I T Cir - VI, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 891/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Sumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234

…DPSC Limited, AYs 2009-09 & 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM] I.T.A. No.1656/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & I.T.A No. 891/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 DPSC Limited (PAN: AABCD0340G) Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-VI, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 25.07.2016 Date of pronouncement: 10.08.2016 For the Appellant: Shri Sumen Adak, FCA For the Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM: These appeals by assessee are arising out of separate o…

Dpsc Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1656/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Sumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234

…DPSC Limited, AYs 2009-09 & 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM] I.T.A. No.1656/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & I.T.A No. 891/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 DPSC Limited (PAN: AABCD0340G) Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-VI, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 25.07.2016 Date of pronouncement: 10.08.2016 For the Appellant: Shri Sumen Adak, FCA For the Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM: These appeals by assessee are arising out of separate o…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 4049/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 4000/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 2132/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…

Addl. CIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 3473/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S. Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 3472/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…

DCIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 2491/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…

DCIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 2490/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…

DCIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2489/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 2489/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…

DCIT, Sonepat vs. Shri Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 10/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 913/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…

M/S. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat vs. ACIT, Haryana

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 784/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…(Haryana) Sonepat 2008-09 and hence the disallowance under Rule 8D was unjustified. For this proposition reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162 (Del.). 5.7.3 It was further submitted that the AO had failed to prove any nexus with investments and interest bearing funds and further no objective satisfaction has been recorded by the AO as to how the claim of the assessee regarding no disallowance u/s 14A is not correct because satisfaction of the AO is a pre-requisite for disallowance u/s…