What is Canara Bank v. ACIT authority for?

No disallowance under Section 14A is sustainable if no expenditure is directly incurred in earning exempt income, especially when the income is directly credited to the assessee's bank account.

How many judgments cite Canara Bank v. ACIT?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite Canara Bank v. ACIT (265 CTR 385), spanning 2016 to 2023.

Canara Bank v. ACIT (265 CTR 385)

Strides Pharma Science Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…ble Karnataka High Court has held that in case no expenditure is directly incurred in earning exempt income since the entire exempt income is directly credited in the bank account of the assessee hence no disallowance is sustainable in Canada bank versus ACIT 265 CTR 385, identical facts exists in the case of the assessee also and therefore no disallowance should be made. 22. The learned departmental representative vehemently submitted that argument raised placing reliance on the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court does not have any relevance in the case of the assessee as the assessee has invested i…

Manali Petrochemicals Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

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

ITA 3203/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3203/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Manali Petrochemical Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ponneri High Road, Manali, V. Income-Tax (Ltu-Appeals)-1, Chennai – 600 068. Chennai – 600 068. [Pan: Aaacm-3404-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 80

…t in making the said investments. (HDFC Bank Ltd 383 ITR 529 Bom). 3.3 The AO /DRP ought to have appreciated that no expenditure was incurred by the Appellant Company for earning the exempt income, as they are deposited to the bank account. (Canara Bank v CIT 265 CTR 385 Kar 3.4 Without prejudice, the disallowance under this section should be restricted to 0.5% of the investment from which dividend has been earned and not on the entire investment as per Rule 8D(2)(iii). 3.5 The DRP / AO erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. Rs.5,62, 106/under sec 14A read with Rule 8D while computing Book Profits under Sect…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. State Bank of Mysore

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

ITA/355/2013HC Karnataka15 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)

…LTD', (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC), 'CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD', (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), 'CIT V. SYNDICATE BANK', (2020) 115 TAXMANN.COM 287 (KARNATAKA), 'CIT VS. KARNATAKA BANK LTD', (2014) 226 TAXMAN 187 (KARNATAKA) 'CANARA BANK VS. ASST CIT', (2014) 265 CTR 385 (KARNATAKA), CIT VS. 12 SABARI ENTERPRISES', (2008) 298 ITR 141 (KARNATAKA), MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD V. CIT (2006) 286 ITR 585 (KARNATAKA) . 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 37(1) of the Act provides that any expenditure not being expendit…

M/S Suprajit Engineering Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2143/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Suprajit Engineering Ltd., No.100, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560099. … Appellant Pan:Aadcs 1638L Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri M.Rajasekhar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajasekhar, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 10(34)Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234

…assessee that no expenditure was incurred, is incorrect. When the assessee had not incurred any expenditure, the question of disallowance u/s 14A does not arise as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Asst.CIT (99 DTR 36)(Kar.) In the circumstances, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment on this issue as per law.” 7. The ld. AR relied on Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009)(313 ITR 340)(Bom), para.14 to 16 which read as under: “14 We have heard learned counsel for both the…

M/S. R. Kumar Plus, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2772/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2771 & 2772/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…A) were duty bound to follow the said decisions of the jurisdictional! court of law and delete the impugned addition of Rs.3,58,059/-. 3. The appellant states that as recently held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. ACIT (2014) 265 CTR 385 (Kar.), since the dividend income is directly credited in the bank account no human agency is involved in collecting such exempt income for which the assessee has to incur any expenditure and hence the provisions of Section 14A would not apply in such cases. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate the fact that it would be wholly illogica…

M/S. R. Kumar, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2771/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2771 & 2772/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…A) were duty bound to follow the said decisions of the jurisdictional! court of law and delete the impugned addition of Rs.3,58,059/-. 3. The appellant states that as recently held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. ACIT (2014) 265 CTR 385 (Kar.), since the dividend income is directly credited in the bank account no human agency is involved in collecting such exempt income for which the assessee has to incur any expenditure and hence the provisions of Section 14A would not apply in such cases. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate the fact that it would be wholly illogica…

Hcc Real Estate Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2209/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Vikrant Rajopadhye/For Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court on the issue in the case of CIT Vs Deepak Mittal [2014] 361 ITR 131 (P&H). 3. The Id CIT(A) erred in not following the direct judgement of Karnataka High Court on the issue in the case of Canara Bank Vs ACIT [2014] 99 DTR 36 (Karn). 4. The Id CIT(A) grossly erred in totally ignoring almost all the detailed submission made by the appellant against the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.3,92,36,297. 5. The Id CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,92,36,297, under section 14A of the Act, in relation to dividend income of R…

Tata Condulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 3595/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer

Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…tal gain, therefore, A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 the income from mutual fund is not liable to be considered for the purpose of section 14 read with Rule 8D of the Act specifically in view of the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. ACIT (265 CTR 385). On the other hand the learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. It is not in dispute that the assessee earned the Long Term Capital Gain on mutual fund of Rs.1,11,23,750 and other income from mutual funds of Rs.31,55,355/-. It is long term investment and the income was directly…

Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG OSD (7), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 6786/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer

Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…tal gain, therefore, A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 the income from mutual fund is not liable to be considered for the purpose of section 14 read with Rule 8D of the Act specifically in view of the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. ACIT (265 CTR 385). On the other hand the learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. It is not in dispute that the assessee earned the Long Term Capital Gain on mutual fund of Rs.1,11,23,750 and other income from mutual funds of Rs.31,55,355/-. It is long term investment and the income was directly…

M/S Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd vs. DCIT

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

ITA 1549/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Cyber Park Develoment & Construction Ltd. Plot Nos.76 & 77, Electronic Phase I, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100. … Appellant Pa No.Aaccc1113H Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

…o application of provisions of sec.8(1), question of invoking rule 8DD(2)(iii) does not arise. He also relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Canara Bank in ITRC No.382/2010 C/W ITA No.381/2010 and Canara Bank vs. Asst.CIT (99 DTR 36)(Kar.) in the context of provisions of 80M of the Act. Page 7 of 11 6.2 On the other hand, learned DR contended that on the plain meaning of the word intangible, nature of asset cannot be tangible whereas in the present case leasehold rights on land are nothing but interest in land which is nothing but land therefore is not eligible for depreciatio…

M/S Page Industries Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 163/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha,CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80JSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.163/Bang/2015 (Assessment year: 2010-11) M/s.Page Industries Ltd., Abbaiah Reddy Industrial Area, Jockey Campus, No.6/2 & 6/4, Hongasandra, Begur Hobli, Bangalore-560068. … Appellant PA No.AABCP2k630D Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 5(1)(2), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha,CA Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 11/04/2016 Date of pronouncement : 24/06/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA…

Canara Bank v. ACIT