ACIT v. M.Baskaran

152 ITD 844Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#6538 most cited

What is ACIT v. M.Baskaran authority for?

Income from investments must be considered for disallowance under Section 14A, but only if actual income has been earned. The assessment must involve an exercise to determine if income has been earned, if the investee company can declare dividends, and if dividends will be declared in the future.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. M. Baskaran · 152 ITD 844 · Section 14A · disallowance of expenditure · income from investment · dividend · earned income · ITAT Chennai

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 1962

Judgments citing ACIT v. M.Baskaran

Dalmia (Bros) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 380/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Her As Additional Ground Of Appeal Reading As Under :-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…H) 265 (v) CIT vs. Torrent Power Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Guj) 270 (vi) CIT vs. Shivam Motors Pvt.Ltd. (2014) CTR (All) 277 (vii) CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del) 282 Page 13 of 20 Dalmia (Bros.) Pvt. Ltd. (viii) ACIT vs. M. Baskaran (2015) 152 ITD 844. (ix) Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 152 ITD 320. 7.8 Without prejudice to the above even if it is to be presumed that the Income, If any earned shall not form part of the total income is to be considered it will be related to the income which has accrued but have not been received. For this purpose it has to…

Aditya Birla Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3214/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhaditya Birla Retail Ltd., Principle Cit-9 86/92 Skyline Icon, 5Th & 6Th Room No. 214, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Near Mittal Industrial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Estate, Andheri (East), Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 059 Pan – Aaacp2678Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar/Ms. Niyanta Mehta & Manish Shah (Ar’S) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Ms. Niyanta Mehta and Manish Shah (AR’s)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40

…tya Birla Retail Ltd. (57 taxmann.com 28) (Del.), Redington (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [392 ITR 633 (Madras)], CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras)], DCIT vs. M/s. Apex Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2855/M/2013 & ACIT vs. M. Baskaran [152 ITD 844 (Chennai Trib.)]. 9. In alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that if investment has already considered in Rule 8D(2)(i) are once again considered under Rule 8D(2)(ii), it would neither be in-compliance with the law nor in consonance with the affidavit filed by revenue before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Godrej &…

Smt Ruchika Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 3

…taxmann.com 250 (SC). (ii) CIT Vs Walfort Shares & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 326 ITR 1. 5 ITA 270/JP/2019_ Ruchika Agarwal Vs DCIT (iii) Pr.CIT Vs Shri Prakash Gwalera (2018) (11) TMI 877. (iv) CU Vs Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 518. (v) ACIT Vs M. Baskaran (2015) 152 ITD 844 (Chennai Trib). 6. On the other hand, it was argued by the ld DR that the assessee has not disclosed exempt income earned and also the expenditure attributable to such exempt income, therefore, the A.O. was justified in reopening the assessment when he found that the disallowance U/s 14A was not made in the original assessment framed U/s 143(3)…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Limited., Kolkata

ITA 192/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ia P. Ltd. [272 CTR 282]  The Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CITVs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [272 CTR 265]  ITAT(Bangalore) in case of Alliance Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs, DCIT (order enclosed)  ITAT(Chennai) in case of ACIT Vs. M.Baskaran [152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the year earned no income on investments to the tune of Rs. 74,805.68102 lakhs (details enclosed at page 81) considered by the AO in the closing value of investment. 2.5.1 Further, the AO while considering the average value of Investments has considered…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Limited., Kolkata

ITA 191/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ia P. Ltd. [272 CTR 282]  The Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CITVs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [272 CTR 265]  ITAT(Bangalore) in case of Alliance Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs, DCIT (order enclosed)  ITAT(Chennai) in case of ACIT Vs. M.Baskaran [152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the year earned no income on investments to the tune of Rs. 74,805.68102 lakhs (details enclosed at page 81) considered by the AO in the closing value of investment. 2.5.1 Further, the AO while considering the average value of Investments has considered…

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cental Circle - 4(4), Kolkata

ITA 139/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ia P. Ltd. [272 CTR 282]  The Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CITVs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [272 CTR 265]  ITAT(Bangalore) in case of Alliance Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs, DCIT (order enclosed)  ITAT(Chennai) in case of ACIT Vs. M.Baskaran [152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the year earned no income on investments to the tune of Rs. 74,805.68102 lakhs (details enclosed at page 81) considered by the AO in the closing value of investment. 2.5.1 Further, the AO while considering the average value of Investments has considered…

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cental Circle - 4(4), Kolkata

ITA 138/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ia P. Ltd. [272 CTR 282]  The Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CITVs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [272 CTR 265]  ITAT(Bangalore) in case of Alliance Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs, DCIT (order enclosed)  ITAT(Chennai) in case of ACIT Vs. M.Baskaran [152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the year earned no income on investments to the tune of Rs. 74,805.68102 lakhs (details enclosed at page 81) considered by the AO in the closing value of investment. 2.5.1 Further, the AO while considering the average value of Investments has considered…

Global Calcium Private Limited, Hosur vs. ACIT Company Circle II(2), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1229/CHNY/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. No. 1229/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri. M. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 14ASection 263

…56,453/- an expenditure relatable to the exempt income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the decisions in the cases of Chem Invest vs CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Del), this tribunal decision in the case of ACIT vs M. Bhaskara, 152 ITD 844, held that disallowances could be restricted to the extent of exempt income and in this case, the disallowance made by the AO being at Rs 1,58,453/-, which is less than the exempt income earned by the :- 4 -: assessee, confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. In this regard, the AR submitted that the impugned dividend was earned on the old inv…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…: 392 ITR 633 (Mad.) • SInterglobe Enterprises v. DCIT: ITA No.1362 & 1032/Del./2013 (Del. Trib.) - affirmed by Delhi High Court in ITA No.456 of 2016 • DCIT v. Morgan Stanley India Securities Pvt. Ltd. : ITA No. 114/Mum/2013 • (Mum.) VS ACIT v. M. Baskaran: 152 ITD 844 (Chn. Trib.) Specific reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd vs. DCIT: 144 ITD 141. In the said case, in A.Y .2008-09, the assessee had invested Rs.103 crores in shares on which it earned tax-free dividends of Rs.1.3 lakhs. The assessee claimed that though its borrowings…

Aditya Birla Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3215/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 263

…vs. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. (57 taxmann.com 28) (Del) (3) Chemnivest Ltd. vs. CIT (378 ITR 33) (Del) (4) Redington (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT (392 ITR 633 (Madras) (5) CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. (80 taxmann.com 221) (Madras) (6) ACIT vs. M. Baskaran (152 ITD 844) (Chennai Trib) and (7) DCIT vs. M/s. Apex Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2855/M/2013 (Mum.). The ld AR submits that the order on this issue is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the authorities below. The ld DR further submits that the assessing offic…

R. Jegathambal, Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 3091/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: 05.12.2017
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

…estments in equity shares stood as on 31.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 Rs.6,11,81,910/- and Rs.6,11,81,910/- respectively. 4. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) placing reliance in the decision of the Chennai Benches of the Tribunal in the case JCIT vs. Baskaran reported in 152 ITD 844 wherein it was held that in the absence of dividend income no disallowance should be made U/s.14A of the Act, sustained the disallowance of Rs.46,950/- being the amount of assessment year. 5. Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had not incurred any expenditure for earning exempt income which was not considered by the Ld.AO while invo…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…ITA No.456 of 2016, REI Agro Ltd vs. DCIT: 144 ITD 141 (Kol. Trib.) – Department appeal dismissed in CIT v. REI Agro Ltd. : I.T.A.T No.220 of 2013 (Cal. HC), DCIT v. Morgan Stanley India Securities Pvt. Ltd. : ITA No. 114/Mum/2013 (Mum.), ACIT v. M. Baskaran: 152 ITD 844 (Chn. Trib.), and it is submitted that the assessing officer erred in considering the entire investments while computing disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D. The disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D is to be in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income and this can be done only by taking into consideration the inves…

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bgh Exim Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3703/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Ms. Anupama Singla( D. R.)For Respondent: Shri Ronak G. Doshi & Ritu Punjabi
Section 14A

…110 of 2009 (Bom) 8 Cheminvest Ltd.v. CIT (378 ITR 33) (Del) (High 86-92 Court) 9 Avshesh Mercantile P. Ltd. v. DCIT(26 93-103 taxmann.comm43) (Mum) 10 Wind World Wind Farms (India) Ltd. v. DCIT 104-110 (I.T. Act No. 2712/Mum.2014) 11 ACIT v. M. Baskaran (152 ITD 844) (Chennai) 115-116 6. Ld. Counsel submitted that the case was covered in his favour in view of the aforesaid judgment, therefore, order passed by the Ld. IT(A)is to be upheld. 7. Per contra Ld. D.R. submitted that assessee is having Preference Shares as part of investment as shown in the balance-sheet, therefore, it cannot be said that no income…

Videocon Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1310/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…TA No. 5779/Mum/2006] 148 TTJ 607 ix) Jindal Steel & Alloys Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No. 9611Mum/2009] Mumbai ITAT) 15 M/s. Videcon Industries Ltd. x) ACIT vs. Lafarge India Holdings Pvt. Ltd 19 SOT 121 (Mumbai ITAT) xi) ACIT vs. M Baskaran [ITA No. 1717/Mad/2013] 152 ITD 844 (Chennai ITAT) 15. That apart, he pointed out that the assessee had huge surplus fund in the form of ‘share capital’ and ‘reserve and surplus’ which aggregated to Rs.8313,23,39,997/- which is far excess than the investments made which stood at Rs.3966,70,91,020/-. Thus, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs.…

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Cox & Kings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2381/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhi.T.A. No.2381/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) फनाभ/ Dcit-1(1), M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., Room No.579, Aayakar Bhavan, Turner Morrison Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. 16, Bank Street, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacc1921B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.135/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) फनाभ/ M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., Dcit-1(1), Turner Morrison Building, Room No.579, Aayakar Vs. 16, Bank Street, Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacc1921B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Rajan R. Vora प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Shiddaramappa Kappata Navar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2015 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Captioned Appeal Ita No.2381/M/2014 Is Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-1, Mumbai Dated 10.1.2014 For The Assessment Year 2008-2009. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Of In This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Following Paragraphs Of This Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Shiddaramappa Kappata
Section 14A

…gment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing (P&H) (272 CTR 265); decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited (ITA No.749/2014); decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. M. Bhaskaran (152 ITD 844) (Mds. Tribunal) and others, copies of which are placed in paper book placed before us, which are relevant for the proposition that “section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year”. After hearing the Ld Representatives of both the parties and on perusal of the decisions cited by the Ld C…

Cox & Kings Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1354/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, DR and Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92A(3)

…gment of the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing (P&H) (272 CTR 265); decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited (ITA No.749/2014); decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. M. Bhaskaran (152 ITD 844) (Mds. Tribunal) and others, copies of which are placed in paper book placed before us, which are relevant for the proposition that “section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year”. After hearing the Ld Representatives of both the parties and on perusal of the decisions cited by the Ld C…

Apa Hotels Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1433/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1433/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 14A

…reckoned for disallowance u/s.14A. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee :- 3 -: contended that the investment in subsidiaries should be outside the purview of Section 14A, as held by the Co-ordinate Bench, Chennai in the case of ACIT vs. M.Baskaran 152 ITD 844 that investments amount on which no income has been earned/received should not be considered while computing the disallowance u/s.14A. The ld. Authorised Representative further contended that the assessee had not incurred any expenditure to earn any return on these investments. The companies, mutual funds etc are separate entities having their…

ACIT v. M.Baskaran (152 ITD 844) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax