Asstt. CIT, Range 10(1), Mumbai v. Citi Corp Finance (India) Ltd.

12 SOT 248Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#7649 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 14a previous year company section 14 section 143(3)india total income business interest nfac

Judgments citing Asstt. CIT, Range 10(1), Mumbai v. Citi Corp Finance (India) Ltd.

M/S. THE STOCK & BOND TRADING COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1446/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…s non satisfaction by not convinced with the submission of the assessee that no expense was directly incurred for earning of the exempt income. The A.O. by relying on the decision of Asstt. CIT, Range 10(1), Mumbai vs. Citi Corp Finance (India) Ltd. [2007) 12 SOT 248 (Mum) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. 1445 & 1446/M/2023 (A.Ys.14-15 & 13-14) M/s. The Stock & Bond Trading Company vs. DCIT [2009] 117 ITD 169 (Mum)(SB) disallowed expenses of R.4,42,732/- which is an aggregate of Rs.3,75,217/- under Rule 8D(ii) of the Rules towards interest ex…

M/S. THE STOCK & BOND TRADING COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1445/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 539/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice-& Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Dcit, Circle-8, Vs M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., Pune. 26/27, Mumbai Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaacf 2637 D Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shrij.G. Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shrim.M. Chate, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 Order Perpartha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Dated 19.05.2022For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap Without Appreciating The Fact That Assesses Itself Categorized Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Statement Of Roorkee Unit Undertaking & The Same Is Not Derived From The Activities Of The Eligible Business. 1(B) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Liberty India Vs. Cit (2009) 317 Itr 218 (Sc) Wherein The Words "Derived From' Is Explained? 1(C) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Sale Of Scrap, Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of M/S Fenner India Ltd. (241 Itr 803) Without Appreciating The Facts That The Same Has Been M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd.

For Appellant: ShriJ.G. Pendse, ARFor Respondent: ShriM.M. Chate, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92(2)Section 92B

…agganlal Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 456, which has expressed a similar view, that expenditure may be attributable to earning of dividend income. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case of M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. 12 SOT 248, the relevant portion contained in Para 13 and 14 are reproduced as under: "It is difficult to accept the hypothesis that one can earn substantial dividend income without incurring any expenses whatsoever including management or administrative expenses. By same logic, it is equally difficult to accept that the only expenses involved in earning the…

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONA FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DILHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…erroneously invoked Rule 8D of the Rules without recording the prerequisite satisfaction in this regard. The learned AO relied on the decisions viz Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. [2008] 117 ITD 169 (ITAT SB)(Mum) and Citicorp Finance (India) Limited [2006] 12 SOT 248 (Mum). The learned AO has failed to appreciate that while passing the order in the case of Godrej Boyce (supra), the Jurisdictional High Court has considered the Mumbai Tribunal judgment in the case of Daga Capital Management Private Limited (supra), and the Hon'ble Bombay HC has held that the AO is required to objectively arrive at a 32 ITA No.…

HDFC BANK LTD (SUCCESSOR TO BUSINSS OF CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 14A

…tablished. Thus, he submitted, there cannot be any presumption that the investment made is out of interest free funds unless the assessee establishes the nexus. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. ACIT vs Citicorp Finance India Ltd (2007) 12 SOT 248 (Mum) 2. Maxopp Investment Limited vs CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC) 3. ITO vs Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd 312 ITR (AT) 1 (Bom) 4. Hatkesh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs ACIT ITXA 328 of 2014, ITXA 372 of 2014 and other appeals 5. Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co Ltd vs DCIT and Another (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom) 6. CIT vs Abhishek Industries Ltd (2006) 28…

ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1053/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.M. Madhavi

Section 14A

…ursuant to the formula devised as per rule 8D. In support of this, the Assessing Officer relied upon certain judicial pronouncements viz. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd.; Godrej Boyce Ltd., Bombay High Court decision; and M/s. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., 12 SOT 248. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made total disallowance of ` 16,60,78,160 and added back to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) raising the dispute. However, during the course of hearing before the learned CIT(A) the assessee has…

RAVI MOHAN GEHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cen Cir 40, Ravi Mohan Gehi, Piramal Chambers B/6, Navkar Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Pin- Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aeppg1674M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Pradip Kanasi, Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Michael, Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 29.07.2020 : Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2020 :

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kanasi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Michael, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 57

…curred for earning of exempt income and relied on judicial pronouncements. AO rejected the submissions of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D (2) (iii) and disallowed ₹ 6,80,760/– by relying on Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd 12 SOT 248 and the case of Daga Capital Management Ltd. 10. AO observed that during the course of search in the case of Bliss GVS Pharmaceutical Group, certain loose papers pertaining to M/s Growmore Investment and Developers Private Limited were found and seized being copies of undated Hundies of ₹ 25 lakhs each (pages 35 to 46 front and back) which were s…

DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. K. GIRDHARILAL INTERNATIONAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4036/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4036 To 4038 /Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. K. Girdharlal International Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 5(2)(1) Vs. 1011 Prasad Chambers, Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, Opera House, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400004. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacck6101F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Veena Purohit (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. Ita. No.4036/M/2018:- 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10

For Appellant: Ms. Veena Purohit (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…justification as regards expenses incurred towards the activity of investment in assets yielding income exempt under the Act. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 10(1). Mumbai v. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. [2007] 12 SOT 248 (Mum.) has held that 'It is difficult to accept the hypothesis that one can earn substantial dividend income without incurring any expenses whatsoever including management or administrative expenses.' Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble] ITAT, Chennai’s Bench in the case of Southern Petro Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income…

DEEPAK SHANTILAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 6912/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

…and that no expenses have been claimed by the appellant while computing the total income. c. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in relying on the case of ACIT Range 10(1), Mumbai vs City Corp Finance (I) Limited (2007) 12 SOT 248 (Mum), as his reliance is based on surmises and presumptions and has failed to prove the nexus between expenditure incurred and the exempt income received d. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in not considering the decisions in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd & Ors v/s CIT (2011)347 ITR 272 (Del)(HC) and Koda…

HI CHOICE PROCESSORS PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

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

ITA 2922/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2922/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2011-12 M/S. Hi Choice Processors Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. , 264 Gidc, Sachin Surat Income-Tax, Central Pan: Aaach 7062E Circle1, Surat अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 14A

…is to be made even if no exempt Hi Choice Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT-Cen-1 Surat /I.T.A. No.2922 /Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y.11-12 Page 3 of 6 income is earned or not. The CIT (A) also supported his view by pricing reliance M/s. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. [2007] 12 SOT 248 (Mum/ [2007] 108 ITD 471 (Mum) and upheld the disallowance so made by the AO. 5. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the AO has relied on the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO 121ITD 318(Del) (SB)/[2009] 317 ITR 86 (SB)( DEL) which stands overruled. I…

SPACO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2882/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2882/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Spaco Technologies बिाम/ Dcit, Circle 5(3), Aayakar (India) P. Ltd., Bhavan, Mumbai 901, Prasad Chambers, V. Opera House, Mumbai- 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcs5307E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. M.C. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d by the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Co in the case of Smt. Leena Ramachandran (2011) (339 ITR 293) (Kerala HC) and latest decision of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Dufon Laboratories P Ltd (2014) 50 taxmann.com143 and Citicorp Finance India Ltd,12 SOT 248 (Mum) However, while taking the figure of average investments, here also the AO should take care in reducing the growth funds from the investments shown by the appellant in the balance-sheet and rework the disallowance under limb(iii) of rule 8D. 4.2.4. In view of the above -discussion it is stated that all the grounds raised with regard to disall…

WELSPUN FINTRADE LTD. (WELSPUN FINTRADE PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6172/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Soodआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.6172/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Welspun Fintrade Limited, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Now Welspun Fintrade Pvt. Ltd), 8(3)(2), Room No.615, Trade World, B-Wing, 9Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Kamala Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Mumbai – 400 020. Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Pan: Aaacw2877J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande-Dr Assessee By : Shri Mitesh N. Shah सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03/01/2018 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर क" धारा आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य,राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dtd. 19/08/2016 Of The Cit(A)-14A,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Investment Filed Its Return Of Income On,13/09/2012,Declaring Loss Of Rs.5.72 Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao) Completed The Assessment On,13/03/2015,U/S.143(3)Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs.(-) 5, 40,77,445/-

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande-DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…claimed exempt u/s.10(34) of the Act.He directed the assessee to show cause as to why the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r.8D of the Rules should not be made.After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO refer to the case of Citicorp Finance India Ltd.(12 SOT 248) and held that all the expenses connected exempt income had to be disallowed u/s.14A regardless of whether they were direct or indirect, fixed or variable,managerial or financial.Invoking the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the rules,he made a disallowance of Rs. 31.58 lakhs (Rs.1,132-direct expenses (STT)+ Rs.31.57 lakhs-0.5% of average investme…

NARENDRA AMBWANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7628/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Narendra Ambwani The Deputy Commissioner 1201, Sterling Sea Face, Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs. Dr. Annie B. Road, Worli, 5(2)(1), Mumbai Mumbai-400 018 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aeipa8788F

For Appellant: Mrugakshi K. Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Arju Garodia, DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…decisions of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Leena Ramachandran (2011) (339 ITR 293) (Kerala HC) and the latest decisions of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Dufon Laboratories P Ltd. (2014) 50 taxmann.com 143 and Citicorp Finance Ltd, 12 SOT 248 (Mum).” Aggrieved, assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal. 4. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that separate books of account are maintained for investment from where dividend income is earned and business carried out by the assessee. She explained that the following expenses are directly linked with the exempt income…

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE DIAMOND COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 326/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)

…d hoc basis and he is statutorily required to compute disallowance in manner provided by sub-section (2) and ITA No.326/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT Cir-12 Kol. vs. M/s The Diamond Co. Ltd. Page 10 (3) of section 14A – CIT v. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd [2007] 12 SOT 248 (Mu.). however, there is merit in the alternative ground taken by the appellant that the AO ought to have excluded the value of investments in units of debt/liquid fund with growth option, debentures & share warrant which are not capable of yielding any dividend income at all and capital gain, if any on their disinvestment would also not be exempt…