How many judgments cite Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT?

1,569 judgments on BharatTax cite Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (378 ITR 33), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 8D, Section 115JB, Section 250, Section 1961.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT

378 ITR 33High Court2015#24 most cited

What is Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

1,569

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT · Section 14A disallowance · no exempt income · exempt dividend income · expenditure related to exempt income · Section 8D · Section 115JB · Income-tax Act 1961 · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

61 Taxmann.com 118234 Taxmann 761317 ITD 33281 CTR 447

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 143(3)Section 8D Section 115JB Section 250 Section 1961 Section 37(1)Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

disallowance u/s 14a disallowance under section 14a section 14a section 36(1)(iii)section 115jb revenue expenditure section 37(1)section 37 section 36 previous year scrutiny assessment section 115

Judgments citing Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT

Hubtown Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

…me of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT 7120161 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest v CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 and CIT v. Holcim (P) Ltd (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi). Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India (P.) Ltd. (supra) reads:- "8. The decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) is significant and does answer the question in issue. This decision does not support the Revenue as the Assessing…

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5312/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora/For Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5312 & 5310/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-21 ACIT- Circle 3 3 1, Room No. 481, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Maker Chamber, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN NO. AAACR 3893 В Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Nimesh Vora/ Ms. Moksha Mehta Revenue by : Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR (Virtually Present) Date of Hearing : 17/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 04…

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5310/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Vora/

Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5312 & 5310/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-21 ACIT- Circle 3 3 1, Room No. 481, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Assessee by Revenue by Vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Maker Chamber, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN NO. AAACR 3893 В Respondent : Mr. Nimesh Vora/ Ms. Moksha Mehta : Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR (Virtually Present) Date of Hearing : 17/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 04…

JCIT, OSD, Delhi vs. Ace Insurance Brokers Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3063/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year : 2020-21 Jcit, Osd, Vs. Ace Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. B-17, Ashadeep Building, 9 Hailey Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca9488L Assessee By : Shri D.C. Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 JCIT, OSD, Vs. Ace Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. B-17, Ashadeep Building, 9 Hailey Road, New Delhi. PAN: AADCA9488L Assessee by : Shri D.C. Agrawal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 14.03.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (herein…

DCIT, Circle -3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 314/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri Balakrishnan S., Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.314/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Nord Anglia Education Income Tax, Infrastructure Private Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AABCV2255L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee by: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh Khurana, Advocate, 2. Shri Snehal Rajan Shukla, Advocate, 3. Shri Avar Lamba, Advocate. राज" व "ारा/Revenue by: Shri Badicala Yada…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 206/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Dodla Dairy Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 466/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Aashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80Section 801BSection 80J

…f the exempt income so earned. Our aforesaid view can safely be gathered from the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of, viz. (i). Pr. CIT Vs. McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 725/2018, dated 22.10.2018; (ii). Cheminvest Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 ((Delhi); (iii). CIT Vs. Holicim India (P) Ltd. (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi); (iv). Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi); (v). CIT Vs. Takisha Engg. India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Delhi); and (vi). Pr. CIT Vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd. (2019) 101 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi). The “SLP” filed by the revenue ha…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Centrum Retail Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5970/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORESHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR.DR.)For Respondent: Shri. Ravikant Pathak, CA

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…eded that the Ld. AO had not reported any exempted income during the impugned assessmentyear. 5. Ld.AR argued and stated that the asssesse’s case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT, (215) 378 ITR 33Delhi. The Ld.AR heavily relied on the relevant para of impugned appellate order. The appellate order para 5.2 to 5.2.1arereproduced as below:- “5.2. Ground 2 Vide this ground, the Appellant has objected to the addition of Rs. 2,91,15,967/-u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. In this regard, the Appellant has submitted that since it has not earned any exempt inco…

Pure Home & Living Private Limited (Formerly Known As Dlf Brands Private Limited), New Delhi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2349/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Pure Home & Living Private Acit, Limited, Vs. Circle 7(1), (Formerly Known As Dlf Brands C.R. Building, Ito, Private Limited), New Delhi. 204, Ground F/F, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Pan No.Aafca7971E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

…ITA No. 2349/DEL/2025 PURE HOME & LIVING PRIVATE LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2349/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम PURE HOME & LIVING PRIVATE ACIT, LIMITED, Vs. Circle 7(1), (Formerly known as DLF Brands C.R. Building, ITO, Private Limited), New Delhi. 204, Ground F/F, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-III, New Delhi. PAN No.AAFCA7971E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Satyajit Goyal, CA & Shri Rajat Garg, CA Revenue by Shri Ajay…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. K Raheja Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5350/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…Court had ruled that, in absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of any amount was not permissible. In arriving at this conclusion, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT (378 ITR 33). The relevant extracts of the judgement are as under: 1. The Revenue's appeal challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had set aside the disallowance of Rs.1,62,49,000/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Assessing Officer (AO) and later the CIT (A) made the di…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. K Raheja Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5349/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…Court had ruled that, in absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of any amount was not permissible. In arriving at this conclusion, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT (378 ITR 33). The relevant extracts of the judgement are as under: 1. . The Revenue's appeal challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had set aside the disallowance of Rs. 1,62,49,000/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Assessing Officer (AO) and later the CIT (A) made the…

Rishikesh Barter Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5837/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rishikesh Barter Pvt. Ltd., A-8, Jyoti Colony, Ward-21(3), Main Loni Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaecr6571N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mukesh Kohli, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the case and in light of the fact that the legislature has inserted Explanation to section 14A making the same applicable even in absence of an exempt income vide Finance Act, 2021 with prospective effect only, I hereby quote Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC) to conclude that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable once the assessee has not declared any exempt income in its case. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th October, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th October, 2025. RK/-…

ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow vs. M/S Mahendra Educational Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 433/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…e that no exempt income was earned during the year. Thus, he contended, no expenditure was incurred by the assessee for earning any exempt income. Therefore, he submitted, any disallowance u/s 14A of I.T. Act was unjustified. (E.1) In Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that in the absence of any exempt income, any disallowance u/s 14A of I. T. Act is impermissible. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. GVK Project & Technical Services Ltd. [2019] 106 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi). In the case of Pr.CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala 391…

Reliance Power Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) DCIT – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4th Floor, H-Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [PAN: AAACR2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited DCIT – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001.…

Photon Ultrawave Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2638/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…ave already settled the issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department that the above statutory amendment does not carry any retrospective effect. Faced with this situation, we hereby quote Cheminvest Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) to delete the impugned disallowance in very terms. 2 | P a g e 4. The assessee’s latter substantive ground raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.28,00,00,000/- received from its holding group M/s. P.R. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as share capital. The Revenue vehemently contends that…

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), New Delhi vs. Prime Comfort Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3582/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 3582/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Vs Prime Comfort Products Pvt. Ltd. Circle-19(1), C-2, 10, Executive Club Road, New Delhi-110002 Opposite Mission Hospital, Village Chandan Hola, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110074 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAFCP2306Q Assessee by : Sh. Raj Kumar, CA & Sh. J. P. Sharma, CA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Ju…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 1 vs. M/S Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed being covered

ITA/511/2025HC Delhi10 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14Section 14ASection 260A

…ge 12 of 12 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33.” 8. Mr. Agrawal states that the aforesaid four judgments rendered by this court, are in appeal before the Supreme Court. Suffice to say for parity of reasons given in M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (Supra) which we have reproduced above, as no substantial questions of law arises, this appeal is dismissed at this stage. V. KAMESWAR RAO…

Income Tax Officer - 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Akshaya Holding Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3369/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing.

Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H (SMC)’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Akshaya Holdings Pvt ltd. Vs Income Tax officer Ward 3(1)(1), C-9, Elder House, Dalia Mumbai, Aayakar Ind Estate, Andheri (W) Bhawan,Mumbai- 400020 off Veera Desai Road, Mumbai- 400053 PAN: AABCA 0224 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Income Tax officer Ward Vs. Akshaya Holdings Pvt ltd. 3(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, C-9, Elder House, Dalia 6th Floor, Room No. 666, IND. Estate, Andheri (W) M.K. Road, Churchgate, off Veera Desai Road, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400053 PAN: AABCA 022…

Akshaya Holdings Pvt Ltd, Dalia Ind Estate, Andheri(W), Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3117/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing.

Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)

Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 729/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Sri S K Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

…, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue on this issue. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., vs., CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.) and submitted that, the same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue against the other of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The assessee-company had also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in assessee-company’s own case for earlier assessment years. Further, the Learned C…