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 367,368 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

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…nce based upon the investments made by the assessee. The CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeals by following the ruling in 118 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 'Chemin vest Ltd. v. CIT [2015/61taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 (Delhi); the Court had then held that in the absence of any exempt income disallowance was impermissible. For the relevant Assessment Year (2013-14). concededly. the assessee did not report any exempt income. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises; the appeal is therefore dismissed along with the pending application. [Emphasis Supplie…

DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi vs. Jindal Itf Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly upheld. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 6871/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s in subsidiary companies and proceeded to make a disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.21,15,14,527/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Ld. CIT (A) referring to the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Limited 378 ITR 33 and CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 90 CCH 081 (Del.) held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. The aforesaid finding of the ld. CIT (A) is in accordance with law as propounded by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. So, we do not find any infirmity in the findings returned by the ld. CIT (A) and the same is accordingly upheld…

Dy CIT, CC--1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Brothers Exports P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 127/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.128/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year :2011-12) & Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Mahendra Brothers Income-Tax Exports Pvt. Ltd., CE 7011-15, 8th Floor Central Circle 1(2) Mumbai Bharat Diamond Bourse 906, 9th Floor, Pratishtha Bandra (E) Bhavan, Old CGO Building Mumbai – 400 051 (Annexe), M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAFCM0246E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/s. Mahendra Brothers Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income- Exports Pvt. Ltd., Tax CE 7011-15, 8th Floor Central Ci…

Dy CIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mep Infrastructure Developers Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmandy.Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S. Mep Infrastructure Developers Ltd. 410, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072. Pan: Aadcm3650J ............ Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Kishore Dhule, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Ms. Tejal Saraf (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2021 Hearing Via Webex Order Per Diva Singh, J.M: In The Facts Of The Present Case, It Is Seen That The Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Toll Collection As Per The Contract Entered With Various Authorities & Also In Providing Road, Repair & Maintenance Service To Its Subsidiaries Companies. 2. For The Purposes Of Addressing The Issues Necessitating Adjudication, It Is Necessary To First Address The Fact That The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Wherein The Correctness Of The Order Dated 27.01.2021 Passed

For Appellant: Sh. Kishore Dhule, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Tejal Saraf (AR)

Section 14ASection 80I

…. On the said issue various High Courts are unanimous and hence the said issue can no longer be said to be res-Integra. The said issue as 5 noticed stands addressed in a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. AS an illustration Cheminvest Ltd. (378 ITR 33 (Del); Madras High Court in Marg Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2020) 120 taxmann.com 84 (Madras). Similar views have been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Gujarat High Court to name of few. Thus, in the face of the well settled legal position where the Courts have repeatedly reiterated that the disallowance under Rule 14A r.w.r 8D cannot ex…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3213/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. /, Sh. Arpit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…principle of law that when there is no dividend income earned during the year under consideration disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D2 is not sustainable. This issue has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Del.). Finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned deletion made by Ld. CIT(A). So, Ground no. 2 is determined against the revenue. 5 ITA No.3213/Del./2016 GROUND NO. 3 9. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 4,93,806/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of employee’s contribution towards EPF and ESI contribution, which is un…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3790/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3423/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) (Through Video Conferencing) M/S Dabur India Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, New Delhi Range-10 (Appellant) New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 143Section 92C

…1 ITA No. 3423 & 3790/Del/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3423/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) M/S Dabur India Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, New Delhi Range-10 (APPELLANT) New Delhi (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. No. 3790/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) Vs DCIT M/S Dabur India Ltd. Circle-7(1) 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv, Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv & Ms. Deepa Shree Rao, Adv…

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3423/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Section 143Section 92C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Sujana Universal Industries Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 88/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…disallowance may be upheld. In this connection, he relied on the following case law: i. CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., [80 taxmann.com 221] (Madras); ii. CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., [223 Taxman 130] (Guj); iii. Cheminvest Ltd., Vs. CIT (2015) [378 ITR 33] (Del) Their lordships hold that Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income and not otherwise. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has not derived any exempt income in the relevant previous year. We :- 3 -: therefore sustain the order of CIT(A) under challenge for this precise reason alone. 5. This…

Jpm Tools Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

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

ITA 5232/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jpm Tools Ltd., Vs Acit, Sanjay Satpal & Assocaites, F-11, Central Circle-13, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacj3128K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2021

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…me of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 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 tasmann.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:- [Assessment Year : 2015-16] '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…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marine Drive Hospitality & Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 70/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit, Cc – 1(4), Vs. M/S. Marine Drive 9Th Floor, 902, Pratishta Hospitality & Reality Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg Pvt Ltd., (Annexe), Mk Road, Ground Floor, Db Mumbai – 400 020. House, Gen. Ak Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1891R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Parisamy. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Hema Kataria. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the revenue the Hon'ble Bombay High court held that the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn the exempt income could not exceed the exempt income earned. It was further held that the ratio of the decisions in the cases of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) (HC)) and CIT v. Holcim India (P) Ltd. (I. T. A. No. 486 of 2014 decided on September 5, 2014(Delhi) (HC) ) would include a facet where the assessee's exempt income was not nil, but had earned exempt income which was more than the expenditure incurred by the assessee in order to earn such income. The order of the Tribunal which restricted…

ACIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Retail Co. Ltd (Now Merged With Aditya Birla Finance Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 14ASection 92C

…or the year. In other words, disallowance of expenditure under section 14A r/w rule 8D shall not exceed exempt income earned for the year. This proposition of law is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.), wherein it was clearly held that disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act shall not exceed exempt income earned by the assessee for the year. As discussed in the forgoing paragraph, in the present case, although the dividend income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer has compute…

DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6227/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: The Sales Tax Department That They Had Not Supplied Any Material For Which The Assessee Has Claimed Expenses?

Section 14A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 6227/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1) M/s. Siroya Developers Vs. Room No. 609 Private Limited 6th Floor, Aayakar 808, Raheja Chambers Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : AAACS7975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Smita Verma Date of Hearing 11.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement 29.10.2021 O R D E R This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] 19.7.2019 per…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 376/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Ms A.D. Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri

Section 43D

…me of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CI T[2018] 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).” 20.3 In view of the above we are of the view that no further disallowances required to be made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rule as the assessee suo moto have made disallowances to the extent of exempt income. Accordingly, we do n…

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Usha International Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 7184/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit Usha International Ltd. Circle – 27 (1) Vs Flat No.1005, Surya Kiran New Delhi Building, 19-K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaact0066A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14Section 14ASection 36

…in appeals for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 and following the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del), CIT v. Holcim India P. Ltd., (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282 and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules is restricted to Rs. 7,12,047/- i.e. the amount of dividend income. Since the assessee company has already made disallowance of Rs. 3,44,109/-. Further disallowance on this basis is to be made of Rs. 3,67,938/- as against disallowance of Rs, 62,65,891/- made by the Ass…

Medha Servo Drives Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 440/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…cise reason herein as well to delete the impugned disallowance in light of case law – i. CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., [80 taxmann.com 221] (Madras); ii. CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., [223 Taxman 130] (Guj); iii. Cheminvest Ltd., Vs. CIT (2015) [378 ITR 33] (Del) The impugned disallowance of Rs.9,61,911/- each in both these consequential round appeals stands deleted therefore. These main appeals ITA Nos.439 & 440/Hyd/2020 are accepted. The very outcome of to follow regarding applicability of Section 115JB MAT provision(s) qua the impugned disallowance as well. 5. These assessee’s three appeals are…

Medha Servo Drives Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 439/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Medha Servo Drives Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 438/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

ACIT, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Mawana Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5724/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…by the learned CIT(A). During the year under consideration, the assessee did not earn exempt income and, therefore, the Learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., reported in 378 ITR 33. We do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in following the binding 3 precedent of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. The ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue relates to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 1,52,75,060/- being 30% of the staff welfare expe…

DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi vs. Icra Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 are allowed partly for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5707/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 And Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. ICRA Ltd., Circel-12(1), 1105, Kailash Building, New Delhi 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACI0218B (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. No.8/Del/2018 [Arising out of ITA No.5707/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2012-13 ICRA Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 1105, Kailash Building, Circel-12(1), 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba New Delhi Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACI0218B (Appellant) (Respondent) De…

DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi vs. Icra Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 are allowed partly for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5706/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 145