How many judgments cite CCI Ltd. v. JCIT?

128 judgments on BharatTax cite CCI Ltd. v. JCIT (250 CTR 291), spanning 2008 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CCI Ltd. v. JCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(34), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 250.

CCI Ltd. v. JCIT

250 CTR 291High Court2012#808 most cited

What is CCI Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A for exempt income is not warranted for notional expenditure where no actual expenditure is incurred. This principle extends to shares held as stock-in-trade if the primary purpose is not to earn dividend income.

128

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CCI Ltd. v. JCIT · Section 14A disallowance · exempt income expenditure · notional expenditure · shares stock-in-trade · dividend income · Rule 8D · actual expenditure · Section 10(34) · Karnataka High Court

Also reported as

206 Taxmann 56320 Taxmann.com 196250 ITR 29171 DTR 141

Sections most often in play

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 8d strategic investment interest free advances disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 36(1)(iii)commercial expediency book profits section 14a section 36(1)section 10 section 36

Judgments citing CCI Ltd. v. JCIT

Isl Consulting Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) ( Previously DCIT, Cen. Circ. 1(3), Chennai), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 218/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…proceedings, the appellant has stated that disallowance u/s 14A is not warranted as the shares of Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. were part of stock-in-trade. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd., 250 CTR 291. The contentions of the ITA No. 218/Ahd/2024 [ISL Consulting Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 10 – appellant have been carefully examined. It is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited [2018] 91 Taxmann.com 154, has decided the issue of disallowance u/s 14A in the case of dividend income being…

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ated 15 January 2013 (Del HC), DCIT v. India Advantage Securities Ltd. (ITA No. 6711/Mum/2011 dated 14 September 2012) (Mumbai Tribunal) (Bom HC) dismissed the department appeal vide its order no. ITA 1131 of 2013 dated 17 March 2015), CCI Ltd. v. JCIT (2012) 250 CTR 291 (Kar HC), Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3724/Mum/2005 dated 20 July 2012), M/s Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 7073/Mum/2012 dated 25 September 2014) (Mumbai Tribunal), Reliance 32 ITA . No. 1694/MUM/2023 & 2036/MUM/2023 SICOM LTD. Industrial Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No. 69 & 70/Mum/2009) dated 5 April 2013 (Mumbai Tribuna…

M/S Manipal Technologies Limited, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi

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

ITA 325/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

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

…estment in shares). b) The learned CIT(A)-l0, Bengaluru has overlooked the following decisions relied on by the Appellant. i) CIT Vs. Karnataka State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (65 Taxmann.com 295) (Kar) ii) CCI Limited vs. JCIT [250 ITR 291] (Kar) iii) DCIT Vs. Subramanya Constructions & Development Corporation Ltd. (ITA No.404/2013), dated 20.2.2013 (ITAT Bangalore). iv) Manipal Prakashan Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Udupi in ITA No. 1208/Bang/2012, order dated 30.8.2013 (ITAT Bangalore). v) Manipal Media Network Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Udupi in ITA No. 1266/Bang/2012…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…idiary of the appellant. Investment in shares of the said company was made for venturing into BPO business through a separate legal entity. The said investment was not made with a view to earn dividend income. The Karnataka High Court in CCI Ltd v JCIT r20121.250 CTR 291,,(Kar) held that notional amount cannot be disallowed under section 14A in the absence of an expenditure incurred in relation to an exempt income. • The ITAT Delhi Special bench in the case of ACIT v Vireet Investment (P) Ltd 120171 82 taxmann.com 415 also held that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of inves…

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalor E vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…• CIT v Socidade De Fomento Industrial Pvt Limited (2020) 429 ITR 358 (Born) [CLC-III Pg.490-501] • Canara Bank v ACIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 162 (Karnataka) [CLC Pg.324-341] M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 27 of 29 • CCI Ltd v JCIT [2012] 250 CTR 291 (Kar) [CLC Pg. 316- 318] • Maxopp Investment Ltd v CIT (2011) 203 Taxman 364 (Delhi) [CLC Pg. 245265] • CIT v Hero Cycles Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H) [CLC Pg.266-268] • Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Born) [CLC Pg.269-315] • CIT v Deepak Mittal [2014] 361 ITR 131 (P&H) [CLC Pg.319-323] • Justice Sam P. Bharucha v. ACIT (…

Hinduja Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range -7(1)(2) (Earlier DCIT 6(1)), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed and order of Ld

ITA 7154/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalhinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aagca0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010- 11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming: I) The Disallowance Made U/S.14A Of The Income Tax Act At Rs.7, 06,985/- As Against Disallowance Of Rs.2, 52,536/- As Computed By The Appellant. The Disallowance Made Of Rs.4, 54,449/- May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 PAN: AAGCA0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.CIT, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent by : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 25/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 20/05/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

ITA 3559/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha

Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “I-1 ” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.3558 & 3559/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 The DCIT, M/s. Jaypee Capital Central Circle-29, Services Ltd., FA-45, Room No.318, 3rd Floor, vs. Shivaji Enclave, ARA Centre, New Delhi – 110 027. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. PAN AAACJ0628A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha, CIT-DR Shri Ved Jain, Sr. Advocate For Assessee : And Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Date of Hearing : 23.06.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

ITA 3558/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha

Section 132Section 153A

ACIT, Circle -15(1), Kolkata vs. Baljit Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 346/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 115JSection 14A

…ITA No. 346/Kol/2017 Baljit Securities, A.Y. 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM and Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 346/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income- Vs. Baljit Securities tax, Circle-15(1), Kolkata. (PAN:AABCB0779P) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 11.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement 24 .02.2021 For the Appellant Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT For the Respondent S/Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate & Rajat Agarwal, CA ORDER Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM: This is an appeal prefe…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6482/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 14ASection 43D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank of India बिधम/ ACIT Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. ITA. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) ACIT Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACS8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Girish…

Jt. CIT -(OSD)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3673/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Central Bank Of India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax – 2(1) Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Jt. Cit (Osd)-2(1)(2) Vs. Central Bank Of India R.No.561, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Chandermukhi Building Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By Shri V. Sreekar Date Of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3739/Mum/2018 & 3673/Mum/2018 For A.Y.2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Dcit2(1) It- 44/Tr.4/16-17 Dated 30/01/2018 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 25/03/2014 By The Ld. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM Central Bank of India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 4th Floor, of Income Tax – 2(1) Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AAACC2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Jt. CIT (OSD)-2(1)(2) Vs. Central Bank of India R.No.561, 5th Floor 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Chandermukhi Building Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AAACC2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by Shri V. Sreekar Date of He…

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adroit Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar

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

ITA 2289/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia &For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2014-15 The ITO, M/s. Adroit Tradelink Ward-1(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd, 145-1, Ahmedabad Vs Sector-14, Samrajya (Appellant) Apartment, Gandhinagar PAN: AAACJ3868J (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Mehul Talera, A.Rs. Date of hearing : 12-07-2019 Date of pronouncement : 01-10-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from order of the CIT(…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Mumbai vs. Safe Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4718/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar SinghFor Respondent: S/Shri M.M. Golvala

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4718/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Asst. Commissioner of Safe Enterprises Income Tax, Matru Mandri, 19B Manek, 11 L.D. Ruparel 2nd Floor, Room No. 206, Vs. Marg, Nepeansea Road, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 006 007 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. ABHFS4029H अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rare Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5208/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. S. PadmajaFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari

Section 14Section 14ASection 2

…ied to it. In this regard, the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of India Advantage Securities Ltd (ITA No.1131 of 2013) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd vs. JCI (250 CTR 291). The assessee also contended that the provisions of Rule 8D would fail in its case, since it did not hold any shares as its investments. The Ld CIT(A) was also convinced with this contention of the assessee and accepted the same. The relevant observations made by Ld CIT(A) in AY 2012-13 are extracted below:- “6.2 Further, I am inclined to agree…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rare Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5207/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms. S. PadmajaFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari

Section 14Section 14ASection 2

DCIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sree Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1392/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…n to avoid taxes, then the transaction would constitute a colorable device. He has cited case of Twinstar Holdings Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 6 (Bombay) wherein similar analogy was decided. Further in the case of Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT 2001 250 ITR 291 (Delhi) it was held that a colourable transaction is one which is seemingly valid, but a feigned or counterfeit transaction is entered into for ulterior purpose. In the case of Workmen of Associated Rubber Industries Ltd. vs. Associated Rubber Industries Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 77 (SC) it has been held that the duty of the court in every case where i…

Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1249/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1248 & 1249/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Punjab & Sind Bank, Vs. DCIT, HO. Accounts & Audit Circle-14(1), New Delhi Department, First Floor, 21, Rajinder Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACP1206G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Vivek Gupta, CA Department by Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22.05.2018 Date of pronouncement 12.06.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, b…

Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S. Arihant Capital Markets Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of

ITA 370/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s stock in trade is incidental to its holding Dividend declared by various listed companies is miscule in comparison to their market rates and no investment is made with the intention of earning such nominal dividend. In the case of CCI Ltd. vs. JCIT (Kar) 206 Taxmann 563 it has been held that 14A does not apply in respect of shares held as stock in trade. Disallowance on notional basis is invalid “When no expenditure is incurred by the assessee in earning dividend income, notional expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s 14A. The assessee had not retained shares with the intention of earning dividend. The divi…