Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

403 ITR 418High Court2018#7027 most cited

What is Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. authority for?

A disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible where there is no nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income generated, especially when the assessee has sufficient surplus funds.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

PCIT v Sintex Industries · 403 ITR 418 · Section 14A · disallowance · no nexus · interest expenditure · administrative expenses · surplus funds · Rule 8D

Sections most often in play

Section 37Section 48

Issues it is cited on

interest free advancessection 115jb(2)business connectionicdsrevision u/s 263section 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencysection 194cbook profitsdisallowance under section 14acapital expendituredisallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Meenakshi Mercantiles Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2489/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-11(1), Meenakshi Mercantiles Limited Kolkata Room No 504, Woodburn Aayakar Bhawan, 6Thfloor, P-7, Central, 5A,Bibhabati Bose, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Sarani Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 Westbengal-700020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm1113E Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Smt. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 48

…2022-23 not require any consideration. These grounds of appeal are, therefore, decided in favour of the assessee.” 012. Similarly the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Ahmedabad vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 418 (Gujarat)[04-05-2017] has decided the issue in favour of the assessee , wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held as under:- “10. Now so far as Question [B] is concerned, it appears that the Assessing Officer made disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 24,37,500/= incurred towards Consultancy charges. The Assessing Officer made disallowance un…

Agrasen Engineering Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d that disallowance under section 14A was not permissible where there was no nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income generated. (vi) Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat passed in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 V/s Sintex Industries Ltd (2018) 403 ITR 418 (Gujarat). “9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, more particularly the fact that the assessee was already having its own surplus fund and that too to the extent of " 1981.55 Crores against which investment was made of " 144.51 Crores, there was no question of making any disallowance of expenditure in respect of interest and admi…

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 95/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.95/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 14A

…on the following among other decisions further submission that no disallowance can we made under rule 8D(2)(ii) in view of the availability of sufficient own funds for making the investments. CIT vs. Microlabs Ltd -383 ITR 490 Kar. PCIT v Sintex Industries - 403 ITR 418 Guj confirmed by 93 Taxman.com 24 SC. CIT (LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd - 307 CTR 121 SC. 2.6 The CIT(A) / NFAC ought to have directed that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) should be made only in respect of investments from which Dividend has actually been earned during the year. The Appellant relies on the following among oth…

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.84/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(3)Section 43B

…on the following among other decisions further submission that no disallowance can we made under rule 8D(2)(ii) in view of the availability of sufficient own funds for making the investments. CIT vs. Microlabs Ltd -383 ITR 490 Kar. PCIT v Sintex Industries - 403 ITR 418 Guj confirmed by 93 Taxman.com 24 SC. CIT (LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd - 307 CTR 121 SC. 3.1 The CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the interest disallowance of Rs.8,95,30,266/- as being interest on borrowings relatable to interestingly advances given to group companies. 3.2 The CIT(A) /NFAC ought to have appreciated that the appellant had su…

M/S Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. The ITO, Corportion Ward-3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 388/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.388/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 143(3)

…other decisions: CIT vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd 331 ITR 502 Del. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. vs. CIT, 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) CIT vs. Hotel Savera - 239 ITR 795 (Mad) CIT (LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd - 307 CTR 121 SC-Civil Appeal PCIT v Sintex Industries 403 ITR 418 Guj confirmed by93 Taxman.com 24 SC. As is evident, the additions / disallowance which forms the subject matter of this appeal are i.e., (i) Disallowance of bad debts written-off; (ii) Disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments on impugned issues citing various judicial decisions and also filed written s…

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 205/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.204/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Acit / Ito बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Circle-6(2) / 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Corporate Ward-3(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

…reliance on among other decisions: CIT vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd 331 ITR 502 Del. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. vs. CIT 313 ITR 340 (Born.) CIT vs. Hotel Savera 239 ITR 795 (Mad) CIT (LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd 307 CTR 121 SC PCIT v Sintex Industries 403 ITR 418 Guj confirmed by 93 Taxman.com 24 SC. 6. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest of Rs. 105. 73 crores excluded in the memo which represents interest income of AY 2001-02 Rs.57.26 Crores & AY 2002-03, Rs.48.46 Crores which were offered to tax in those two years. The amount was adjusted against investment for AY 2003-04 but disallowed I not cla…

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 204/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.204/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Acit / Ito बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Circle-6(2) / 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Corporate Ward-3(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

…reliance on among other decisions: CIT vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd 331 ITR 502 Del. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. vs. CIT 313 ITR 340 (Born.) CIT vs. Hotel Savera 239 ITR 795 (Mad) CIT (LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd 307 CTR 121 SC PCIT v Sintex Industries 403 ITR 418 Guj confirmed by 93 Taxman.com 24 SC. 6. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest of Rs. 105. 73 crores excluded in the memo which represents interest income of AY 2001-02 Rs.57.26 Crores & AY 2002-03, Rs.48.46 Crores which were offered to tax in those two years. The amount was adjusted against investment for AY 2003-04 but disallowed I not cla…

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A). The same is hereby upheld. The ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” (iv) Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat passed in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 V/s Sintex Industries Ltd (2018) 403 ITR 418 (Gujarat). 16 Career Point Limited, Kota. “9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, more particularly the fact that the assessee was already having its own surplus fund and that too to the extent of ₹ 1981.55 Crores against which investment was made of ₹ 144.51 Crores, there was no question of making any disallowance of expenditure…

Dcdc Health Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9525/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41

…ng judicial pronouncements:- Page 6 of 10 DCDC Health Services Private Limited vs. ITO • “Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 394 ITR 449 (SC) • CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 466 (SC) • PCIT Vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. reported in 403 ITR 418 (Guj) Revenue's SLP was dismissed [255 Taxman171 (SC) ] • South Indian Bank Ltd Vs CIT. reported in 438 ITR 1 (SC) 130 taxmann.com 178(SC) • CIT VS Suzlon Energy Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 630 (Guj.) • CIT Vs Microlabs Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 490 (Kar) • CIT Vs Max India Ltd. reported in 388 ITR 81 (P&H)” 9. Further it is found from the record th…

Manilal Dayalji & Co, Dhamtari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 290/RPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.290/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manilal Dayalji & Co. Gola Bidi Works, Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari (C.G.) Pin : 493773 Pan : Aagfm4587N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Dcit-2(1), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lane, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.290/RPR/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manilal Dayalji & Co. Gola Bidi Works, Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari (C.G.) PIN : 493773 PAN : AAGFM4587N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The DCIT-2(1), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lane, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B. Doshi, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Heari…

M/S. Xs Real Properties Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 42/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 41 & 42/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Xs Real Properties P. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 12, South Mada Street, Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai 600 015. [Pan:Aaacx0030G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Both Dated 28.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…which had been offered to tax, no disallowance is required to be made under section 14A of the Act [CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 418 (Guj), etc.]. 7.3 In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer cannot make disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D in any count. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 8. The next ground raise…

M/S. Xs Real Properties Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 41/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 41 & 42/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Xs Real Properties P. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 12, South Mada Street, Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai 600 015. [Pan:Aaacx0030G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Both Dated 28.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…which had been offered to tax, no disallowance is required to be made under section 14A of the Act [CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 418 (Guj), etc.]. 7.3 In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer cannot make disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D in any count. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 8. The next ground raise…

Kollur Sreenivasan Kamalakannan, Dindigul vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 84/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.84/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kollur Sreenivasan Kamalakannan, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. No. 1, Anna Pillai Street, Corporate Ward 4 (4), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpk5960F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. & Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…which had been offered to tax, no disallowance is required to be made under section 14A of the Act [CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 418 (Guj), etc.]. Thus, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify as to whether the assessee was having sufficient own funds on the date of investments and if so, no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted on the entire interest expenditure on borrowing fund which was incu…

M/S. Harita Seating Systems Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2745/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2745/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Harita Seating Systems Limited, No. 29, Jayalakshmi Income Tax, Estates, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaach2492N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2020

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234A

…which had been offered to tax, no disallowance is required to be made under section 14A of the Act [CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 418(Guj), :- 4 -: ITA No.2745/Chny/19 etc.]. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the financial status of the assessee having sufficient own funds to make investments in subsidiary. We have also perused the balance sheet filed by the assessee and find that the assessee had sufficient funds in the form of c…

M/S. Premium Polyalloys Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Vadodara

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 372/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 372 & 2387/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Anil R Shah & Ms
Section 14A

…(ii) proportionate in the disallowance in view of the long line of judicial precedents in the given situation. We straightway find merit in the plea of the assessee with regard to the judicial precedents in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 418 (Guj) and CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). ITA Nos. 372 & 2387/Ahd/16 [M/s. Premium Pollyalloys Pvt. Ltd.] A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 3 - 6. The disallowance towards administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is however sustained in the absence of any cogent reason for departure from the statutory formula.…

M/S. Premium Polyalloys Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Baroda

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2387/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 372 & 2387/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Anil R Shah & Ms
Section 14A

…(ii) proportionate in the disallowance in view of the long line of judicial precedents in the given situation. We straightway find merit in the plea of the assessee with regard to the judicial precedents in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 418 (Guj) and CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). ITA Nos. 372 & 2387/Ahd/16 [M/s. Premium Pollyalloys Pvt. Ltd.] A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 3 - 6. The disallowance towards administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is however sustained in the absence of any cogent reason for departure from the statutory formula.…

Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del), CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (403 ITR 418) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax