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 367,514 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 14ASection 143(3)Section 8DSection 115JBSection 250Section 1961Section 37(1)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

disallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 14asection 36(1)(iii)section 115jbrevenue expendituresection 37(1)section 37section 36previous yearscrutiny assessmentsection 115

Judgments citing Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT

Tata Sky Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Asst

ITA 3215/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3214/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3215/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Tata Sky Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of Unit 301, To 305, 3 Rd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Windsor, Off C.S.T. Road, [Now Assistant Vs. Kalina, Santacruz (East), Commissioner Of Income – Mumbai-400 098 Tax, Range 16(1)] Mumbai .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagcs9294M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3971/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3972/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Income Tax 7(3) 34D Floor, C-1, Wadia 6Th Room No. 615, Floor, International Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Bombay Dyeing), Mumbai-400 020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbi-400 025 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Senior Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29-07-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-09-2020

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 40

…4 Tata Sky Limited; AYs 09-10 & 10-11 has debited huge interest expenses and other administrative expenses, but failed to disallow expenses relatable to exempt income, by following the decision of ITAT Delhi Special Bench in the case of Champ Investment Ltd. (378 ITR 33). It is the case of the assessee that during the year under consideration it has not earned any exempt income and hence, the question of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act does not arise. 23. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that this is…

Tata Sky Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Asst

ITA 3214/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3214/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3215/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Tata Sky Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of Unit 301, To 305, 3 Rd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 7(3), Windsor, Off C.S.T. Road, [Now Assistant Vs. Kalina, Santacruz (East), Commissioner Of Income – Mumbai-400 098 Tax, Range 16(1)] Mumbai .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagcs9294M Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3971/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3972/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Income Tax 7(3) 34D Floor, C-1, Wadia 6Th Room No. 615, Floor, International Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (Bombay Dyeing), Mumbai-400 020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbi-400 025 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Senior Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29-07-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10-09-2020

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 40

…4 Tata Sky Limited; AYs 09-10 & 10-11 has debited huge interest expenses and other administrative expenses, but failed to disallow expenses relatable to exempt income, by following the decision of ITAT Delhi Special Bench in the case of Champ Investment Ltd. (378 ITR 33). It is the case of the assessee that during the year under consideration it has not earned any exempt income and hence, the question of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act does not arise. 23. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that this is…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Electricity Financing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 801/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 115JSection 14ASection 154

…72 ITR 694. Similar views were taken by various High Courts in the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 221 (Madras HC). 2. CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 486/2014 (Delhi HC) 3. Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC) 4. CIT Vs. Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970/2008, dated 02/04/2014 ( P&H HC). 5. CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., 223 Taxman 130 (Guj.) 6. CIT Vs. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 88 of 2014 (All. HC) 7. Pr. CIT Vs. IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd., [2017] 399 ITR 483 (Del.) 8. The ld. DR before us heavily relied on the Circular…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Electricity Financing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 800/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 115JSection 14ASection 154

…72 ITR 694. Similar views were taken by various High Courts in the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 221 (Madras HC). 2. CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 486/2014 (Delhi HC) 3. Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC) 4. CIT Vs. Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970/2008, dated 02/04/2014 ( P&H HC). 5. CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., 223 Taxman 130 (Guj.) 6. CIT Vs. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 88 of 2014 (All. HC) 7. Pr. CIT Vs. IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd., [2017] 399 ITR 483 (Del.) 8. The ld. DR before us heavily relied on the Circular…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cornerstone Property Investments Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1083/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra. CIT DR
Section 14A

…e same para and deleted the disallowance by following those judgments of various High Courts. He submitted that the order of the special bench of the tribunal is later reversed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chemiinvest Ltd. Vs. ITO as reported in 378 ITR 33. Both sides agreed that in the next year i.e. A. Y. 2014 – 15, the facts and the issues in dispute are same and in that year, it can be decided on similar line. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that even as per the AO, the borrowed funds were used for acquisition of land which is inventory in the present case. The AO has refer…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cornerstone Property Investments Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1082/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra. CIT DR
Section 14A

…e same para and deleted the disallowance by following those judgments of various High Courts. He submitted that the order of the special bench of the tribunal is later reversed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chemiinvest Ltd. Vs. ITO as reported in 378 ITR 33. Both sides agreed that in the next year i.e. A. Y. 2014 – 15, the facts and the issues in dispute are same and in that year, it can be decided on similar line. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that even as per the AO, the borrowed funds were used for acquisition of land which is inventory in the present case. The AO has refer…

Doha Bank Qsc India Branches, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3210/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathait(Tp)A No.3210/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Doha Bank Qsc, India Vs. Dcit(International Branches (Successors To Transaction)-2(2)(2) 17Th Hsbc Bank Oman S.A.O.G., Floor, Air India India Branches) Building, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Sakhar Bhavan, Ground Floor, Plot No-230 Block No Iii, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aafcd3506L Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 14A

…ee. In other words, the disallowances computed u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income earned for the year under consideration as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High court, in the case of JCIT vs Joint Investments Pvt.Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 694 and Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT (378 ITR 33 (Del). Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and by following the case laws discussed herein above, we direct the Ld. AO to restrict disallowances of expenditure computed u/s 14A of the Act, to the extent of exempt income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 670/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…ned any exempt income. It is settled proposition of law that in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not warranted. In this aspect, we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs ld. LD. CIT, 402 ITR 640. Considering the settled proposition of law, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if this issue is restored back to the file of AO with a direction to verify as to whether the assessee has earned exempt income during the…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 669/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…ned any exempt income. It is settled proposition of law that in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not warranted. In this aspect, we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs ld. LD. CIT, 402 ITR 640. Considering the settled proposition of law, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if this issue is restored back to the file of AO with a direction to verify as to whether the assessee has earned exempt income during the…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 668/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…ned any exempt income. It is settled proposition of law that in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not warranted. In this aspect, we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs ld. LD. CIT, 402 ITR 640. Considering the settled proposition of law, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if this issue is restored back to the file of AO with a direction to verify as to whether the assessee has earned exempt income during the…

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

…d that, assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year and therefore provisions of section 14 A read with Rule 8D, cannot be appliied. He placed reliance upon decision of Hon’able Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT reported in (2012) 317 ITR 33. 10.3.2. On the contrary, Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue placed reliance upon orders passed by it is below. 10.4. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 10.4.1. It is noted that admittedly there is no exempt income earned by assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore respectfully foll…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3575/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 3575/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.07.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pamita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 14Section 14A

…dia Public Sector Enterprises under Ministry of Commerce. During the year, the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition based on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 378 ITR 33. 3 MMTC Ltd. 6. The issue of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A relating to income not includable in the total income of the assessee has been dealt in various cases by the Tribunal and the High Courts wherein it was held that no disallowance is warranted in cases where no exempt income has been earned by the assessee. For the sake of ready referen…

Laqshya Media Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7310/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh(Virtual Hearing In Vc No. –Ii) M/S. Laqshya Media Ltd. D C I T - 10(2)(1) Laqshya House Room No. 509/216A Next To Rameshwar Temple, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Saraswti Baug, Society Road, Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aaacl5004C Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajan Vora-Ar Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohancit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2020 O R D E R Per Pawan Singhthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 29Th October, 2018, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Penal (Drp) Dated 28Th August, 2018 For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao/ Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing - 3(1)(1)(Hereinafter Referred To As Tpo')/ Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income At 5,67,38,117As Against Returned Loss Of Rs.8,55,13,089 Computed By The Appellant; Part B -Transfer Pricing Ground: 2. Adjustment Of Rs.20.58.028/- Pertaining To Providing Of Corporate Guarantee (Cg) To Associated Enterprise (Ae)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora-ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand MohanCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92BSection 92C

…AO has not identified any exempt income, therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the Coordinate Bench has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest Ltd. vs. CIT (378 ITR 33 Bom) and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. in (ITA No. 51 of 2016), no disallowance in this regard for the year under consideration is warranted. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the entire disallowance under section 14A. Since we have deleted the entire disallowance und…

Bahar Agrochem & Feeds Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 63/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bahar Agrochem & Feeds P. Ltd. Dcit-14(1)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, (Since Merged With Godrej Agrovet Ltd.) बनाम/ C/O. M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Aaykar Bhavan Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mk Road, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai 400 020. Fort, Mumbai 400 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-2147-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri M.M.Golvala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…2)(iii) has been computed at Rs.19,695/- & Rs.7,163/- respectively. To support the said submissions, reliance has been placed, inter-alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (272 CTR 282) and Cheminvest Ltd. V/s CIT (378 ITR 33). 6. Considering the facts of the case and in terms of cited judicial pronouncements, we agree with the submissions of Ld. AR that only exempt income yielding investments were to be considered to compute the disallowance u/s 14A. Therefore, Ld. AO is directed to verify the computations and if found correct, restrict the disallowance to Rs.14,10,14…

Suma Shilp Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1681/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 14A

…ed in the first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by the sustenance of such disallowance. 4. We have heard both the sides through Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) has held that if there is no exempt income, there can be no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081-Del-HC. Taking this proposition further, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS. HSBC Invest Direct (…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kolhapur vs. Vijaykumar Rajaram Shah, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 608/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…nce as per Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules at Rs.2,87,333/- consisting of disallowance of interest of Rs.2,42,333/- and of disallowance of expenses of Rs.45,000/-. This decision is reversed by Hon. Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) HC and also SLP filed by the Department against the said decision is dismissed by Hon. Supreme Court. (Refer Page No. 347, Para 23 for the decision and refer Page No. 335 – 349 for the case laws in the Paperbook for the Case Laws) 5. The above disallowance was challenged before the CIT (A) who has discussed this issue on page No. 65 of his…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1247/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…nce as per Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules at Rs.2,87,333/- consisting of disallowance of interest of Rs.2,42,333/- and of disallowance of expenses of Rs.45,000/-. This decision is reversed by Hon. Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) HC and also SLP filed by the Department against the said decision is dismissed by Hon. Supreme Court. (Refer Page No. 347, Para 23 for the decision and refer Page No. 335 – 349 for the case laws in the Paperbook for the Case Laws) 5. The above disallowance was challenged before the CIT (A) who has discussed this issue on page No. 65 of his…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1246/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…nce as per Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules at Rs.2,87,333/- consisting of disallowance of interest of Rs.2,42,333/- and of disallowance of expenses of Rs.45,000/-. This decision is reversed by Hon. Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) HC and also SLP filed by the Department against the said decision is dismissed by Hon. Supreme Court. (Refer Page No. 347, Para 23 for the decision and refer Page No. 335 – 349 for the case laws in the Paperbook for the Case Laws) 5. The above disallowance was challenged before the CIT (A) who has discussed this issue on page No. 65 of his…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1245/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…nce as per Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules at Rs.2,87,333/- consisting of disallowance of interest of Rs.2,42,333/- and of disallowance of expenses of Rs.45,000/-. This decision is reversed by Hon. Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) HC and also SLP filed by the Department against the said decision is dismissed by Hon. Supreme Court. (Refer Page No. 347, Para 23 for the decision and refer Page No. 335 – 349 for the case laws in the Paperbook for the Case Laws) 5. The above disallowance was challenged before the CIT (A) who has discussed this issue on page No. 65 of his…

Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commisisoner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1179/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…nce as per Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules at Rs.2,87,333/- consisting of disallowance of interest of Rs.2,42,333/- and of disallowance of expenses of Rs.45,000/-. This decision is reversed by Hon. Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) HC and also SLP filed by the Department against the said decision is dismissed by Hon. Supreme Court. (Refer Page No. 347, Para 23 for the decision and refer Page No. 335 – 349 for the case laws in the Paperbook for the Case Laws) 5. The above disallowance was challenged before the CIT (A) who has discussed this issue on page No. 65 of his…