1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (247 CTR 162)

Sundial Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7562/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 & M/S Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd, Income Tax-Circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacs9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 15.5.2012 & 21.10.2013 & They Pertain To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical / Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 and M/s Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner of Ltd, Income Tax-circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ PAN : AAACS9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee by Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue by Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PE…

Sundial Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5674/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 & M/S Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd, Income Tax-Circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacs9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 15.5.2012 & 21.10.2013 & They Pertain To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical / Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 and M/s Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner of Ltd, Income Tax-circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ PAN : AAACS9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee by Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue by Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PE…

M/S. Sunrays Properties & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 352/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Manu Giri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…nuineness of 7 ITA No.352/Del./2014 the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not in doubt, no disallowance could be made under section 14A.” 12. Similarly, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case cited as Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT - (2012) 247 CTR 162 also held that, “the expression “expenditure incurred” refers to actual expenditure and not to some imagined expenditure but the ‘actual’ expenditure that is in contemplation under s.14A (1) is the ‘actual’ expenditure in relation to or in connection with or pertaining to exempt income. The corollary to this is that if no expenditure is incur…

Suraj Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground nos

ITA 3827/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2006-07 Suraj Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 9(1) Green Field Farm, Khasra No.8/1/1 New Delhi] 10/2, 9/3, 4, Gadiarpur Jaunpur Road Tehsil Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaacs 4002 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.R

Section 14ASection 255(3)

…14A of the Act. This issue is also restored to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The A.O. shall apply the propositions of law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs. Maxopp Investments Ltd. reported in 247 CTR 162 (Del), and dispose of the matter de novo. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01st June, 2016. (KULDIP SINGH) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: the 01st June, 2016 *manga ITA No. 3827/Del/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 Suraj Overseas P.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Co…

Pahilajrai Jaikishan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…b) CIT v. R M Chidambaram Pillai (1977)106 ITR 292(SC) c) Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT(2009) 314 ITR 314 d) Vishnu Anant Mahajan v. ACIT in ITA no 3002/Ahd/2009(Ahd.-SB)- (2012) 22 taxmann.com 88 e) Maxopp Investments Limited & Ors. V. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 162(Del.) f) Kodak India Private Limited v. Addl. CIT (ITA No 7349/Mum/2012) g) ACIT v. SIL Investment Limited(2012) 50 SOT 54(Del.) h) CIT v. Hero Cycles Limited (2010) 323 ITR 518(P&H.) & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 We will now review all the above decisions in the light of our above discussions as above: a) CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Private…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…b) CIT v. R M Chidambaram Pillai (1977)106 ITR 292(SC) c) Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT(2009) 314 ITR 314 d) Vishnu Anant Mahajan v. ACIT in ITA no 3002/Ahd/2009(Ahd.-SB)- (2012) 22 taxmann.com 88 e) Maxopp Investments Limited & Ors. V. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 162(Del.) f) Kodak India Private Limited v. Addl. CIT (ITA No 7349/Mum/2012) g) ACIT v. SIL Investment Limited(2012) 50 SOT 54(Del.) h) CIT v. Hero Cycles Limited (2010) 323 ITR 518(P&H.) & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 We will now review all the above decisions in the light of our above discussions as above: a) CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Private…

Vinyl Chemicals (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed

ITA 1066/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1066/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Vinyl Chemicals (India) Ltd., बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Regent Chambers, 7 Th Floor, Income Tax- Range 3 (3), V. Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 6 Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 021. Mumbai- 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacv2410Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan PanchmiaFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jay Kumar (D.R.)

Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)

…11 times and redemption (RTGS) was effected 7 times and there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee company for earning exempt income. The CIT(A) referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 162(Delhi) (HC) wherein it was held that “the argument that if the dominant and main objective of the expenditure was not the earning of 'exempt income' then, the expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s 14A, is not acceptable. If the expenditure has a relation or connection with or pertains to exempt income , it cannot be allowed as a deduction even if…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lemon Tree Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 209/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…Engineering & (I.T.A.No.1896/Mds/2011) e) REI Agro Ltd. (I.T.A.No. 1331 & 1423/Kol/2011) f) CIT vs Metalman Auto (P) Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 434 (P&H) g) Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM) h) Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 247 CTR 162 (Delhi) 4.3. Without prejudice to the above submissions, the ld. AR submitted that the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is towards the interest paid on other loans. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is running hotels under the brand name Lemon Tree and it has made investment in shares of certain subsidiary companies that are also ope…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. H.T.Media Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6393/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. V.P. Gupta, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ate authority (A) has deleted the addition after laying its hands on the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of M/s. Godrej Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd. vs. DCIT, 328 ITR 81 (Bom) and of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162. We have also gone through these 4 ITA No.6393/Del./2013 decisions. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), has observed on the issue as under : “Insofar as sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 14A are concerned, they have also been introduced by virtue of the Finance Act, 2006 specifically provided for ap…

Rajshri Productions P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 16(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2049/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rajshri Productions (P) Ltd. Acit, Bhavana, 1St Floor, 422, Veer Range-16(1), बनाम/ Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400025 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aaacr4139G

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 2

…tion (2) of section 14A before the Assessing Officer proceeds to apply the method prescribed under sub-rule (2)” .. (emphasis supplied) 2.3. 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:…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee and revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1961/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…the exempt income, Ld. Counsel further submitted that for AY 2006-07 the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA no. 22/Del/2011 has considered this issue and in view of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT 247 CTR 162 set aside the issue back to the file of AO. 17. Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the disallowance has rightly been made of interest expenditure as well as other expenditure by AO. 18. We have carefully considered rival submission and we have perused the orders placed before us. Undisputedly for AY 2007-08, Rul…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee and revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1937/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…the exempt income, Ld. Counsel further submitted that for AY 2006-07 the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA no. 22/Del/2011 has considered this issue and in view of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT 247 CTR 162 set aside the issue back to the file of AO. 17. Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the disallowance has rightly been made of interest expenditure as well as other expenditure by AO. 18. We have carefully considered rival submission and we have perused the orders placed before us. Undisputedly for AY 2007-08, Rul…

CIT vs. Minda Investment Ltd

ITA - 599 / 2012HC Delhi16 Oct 2012

Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

…As a result this Court feels that no substantial question of law arises. . 6. The ITAT on the other question of disallowance in Section 14A remitted the matter for reconsideration in view of the decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 162. Since that was done at the behest of the assessee this Court does not disturb the said direction of the Tribunal. The appeal is consequently dismissed on the above terms. . . . . . S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . OCTOBER 16, 2012 . vld . . . $ 4 .…

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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