Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT

Huntsman International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…14A r/w rule 8D cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income earned during the year. In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del.), Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.), DCIT v/s PHL Finivest Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.2318/Mum./ 2017, dated 31st August 2018, and Sanghavi Exports International Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.3405/Mum./2015, dated 10th July 2017. Thus, applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earne…

Akbar Abdul Ali, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed accordingly

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4703/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Akbar Abdul Ali बिधम/ ACIT-17(1) 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Prop. Faize & Company, Vs. Unit No.5, Alahi Baug, 75, Mumbai-400020. Abdul Rehman Street, Mumbai-400003. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABPA6866F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri N. R. Agrawal Revenue by: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 28/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronounceme…

ITO 11(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Saicharan Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Income Tax Officer-11(1)(3) M/S Saicharan Consultancy Room No.201, Aayakar Bhavan Pvt. Ltd., 317, 3Rd Floor, M.K. Marg, Raheja Chambers, Free Press Marg, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan – Aakcs5972N

…ove contentions of the assessee as correct. Thereafter, relying on catena of decisions like PCIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 51/2016) (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench), Zee News Ltd. (2018-TIOL-263) (Bombay High Court), Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 378 ITR 33(Delhi High Court), deleted the disallowance of Rs.2,04,17,998/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the AO. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. The fact remain that the assessee-company has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. We are o…

DCIT - CC- 6(4), Mumbai vs. J.M.Bakshi & Co., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2015-16

…uestion of disallowance u/s. 14A Rule 8D. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT(A), who has followed the judgment 4 M/s. J M Bakshi & Co. of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 378 ITR 33. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (supra), has also held that no disallowance u/s. 14A Rule 8D has to be made when there is no exempt income. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismi…

DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Payone Enterprises (P) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3616/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of Payone Enterprises (P) Ltd. 6Th Floor, Manek Mashal, Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) 5Th Room No. 540, Floor, 90, Veer Nariman Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafca4453K

…e of investment at ₹ 10,99,44,725/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). Aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before Tribunal. 4. After hearing both the sides and going throng the facts and circumstances of the case, I noted that the dividend income is to the extent of ₹ 926/- only. The assessee has claimed this as exempt income. When this fact was confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he fa…

Nepean Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4000/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2012-13) Nepean Finvest Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income 801, Pleasant Palace, 16, Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Narayan Dabholkar Road, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, New Nepean Sea Road, Marine Lines, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabpm3701B अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Daval Shah, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Ms. N Hemalatha, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019

…Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016, wherein this issue has been considered following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem invest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) held as under: - 3 “On hearing the learned Counsel for the Department and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the Authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no exempt income earned by the assessee. While holding so, the Authorities relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax App…

DCIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Sahana Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bledcit – 11(1)(2) V. M/S. Sahana Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No.1, Ground Floor 402, Sagar Avenue, Plot No. 54-B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Junction Of S.V. Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 058 Pan: Aakcs2550A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh

…income has been earned by the appellant during the year. Therefore, disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot be made. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) Zee News Ltd. (2018-TIOL-263) Bombay HC (ii) Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC). (iii) CIT vs Corrtech energy private limited (Tax Appeal No. 239 of 2014) (Gujarat High Court) (iv) CIT Vs Winsome Textile Industries Ltd (319 ITR 204) (P & H) (v) CIT Vs Holcim India P Ltd (ITA No. 486/2014 & ITA No. 299/2014) Delhi High Court (vi) CIT Vs. Shivam Motors P Ltd (ITA No. 88 of 2014), Allahabad High Court. (vii) PC1T Vs B…

Madanmohan Ambikaprasad Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in term of the above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2014 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) Mr. Madanmohan Ambikaprasad The Income Tax Officer, Mishra, Ward 8(2)(4, Aayakar Bhavan, 512, Building No. 2, Dheeraj Churchgate, Mumbai बनाम/ Valley Compound, Near Sai Vs. Baba Complex, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-63 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabpm3701B अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Ms. N Hemalatha, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019

…gh Court in the case of in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016, wherein this issue has been considered following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem invest Limited vs. CIT 7 (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) held as under: - “On hearing the learned Counsel for the Department and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the Authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no exempt income earned by the assessee. While holding so, the Authorities relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax Appea…

DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai vs. Horizon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023

…4A of the I.T.Rules 1961, provides for disallowances of expenditure even, where the assessee in particulars year has not earned exempt income. The Ld. DR further submitted that although, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cheminvest Limited 378 ITR 33 had held that where, there is no exempt income there should not be any disallowance, but fact remains that the said decision has not been accepted by the department and SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and same is pending, therefore disallowances made by the AO should be upheld. 15. We have heard both the parties, perused the…

DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Power Development Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2607/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Dcit-Circle – 2(2)1 L&T Power Development Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ L&T House, N.M. Road Aaykar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcl-3867-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Anadi Varma – Ld. Cit Dr Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 06/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():- 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-5/Dcit-2(2)(1)/It-367/2016-17 Dated 08/01/2018 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

…1 L&T Power Development Ltd. Assessment Year :2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2607/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) DCIT-Circle – 2(2)1 L&T Power Development Ltd., Room No. 545, 5th floor, बनाम/ L&T House, N.M. Road Aaykar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCL-3867-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (…

Horizon Infrastructure Ltd(Now Known As Skil Infrastructure Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023

…4A of the I.T.Rules 1961, provides for disallowances of expenditure even, where the assessee in particulars year has not earned exempt income. The Ld. DR further submitted that although, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cheminvest Limited 378 ITR 33 had held that where, there is no exempt income there should not be any disallowance, but fact remains that the said decision has not been accepted by the department and SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and same is pending, therefore disallowances made by the AO should be upheld. 15. We have heard both the parties, perused the…

ITO WD 11(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Sprint Advisory Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

…N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.2285/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–11(2)(3), Mumbai v/s Sprint Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E) ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 060 PAN – AAJCS0579E Revenue by : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Date of Hearing – 31.07.2019 Date of Order – 09.08.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. Captioned appeal by the Revenue is against the order…

Horizon Country Wide Logistics Ltd(Now Succeeded on Amalgamation by Skil Infrastructure Limited ), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2)(Presently ACIT--6(3)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023

…4A of the I.T.Rules 1961, provides for disallowances of expenditure even, where the assessee in particulars year has not earned exempt income. The Ld. DR further submitted that although, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cheminvest Limited 378 ITR 33 had held that where, there is no exempt income there should not be any disallowance, but fact remains that the said decision has not been accepted by the department and SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and same is pending, therefore disallowances made by the AO should be upheld. 15. We have heard both the parties, perused the…

DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai vs. Horizon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023

…4A of the I.T.Rules 1961, provides for disallowances of expenditure even, where the assessee in particulars year has not earned exempt income. The Ld. DR further submitted that although, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cheminvest Limited 378 ITR 33 had held that where, there is no exempt income there should not be any disallowance, but fact remains that the said decision has not been accepted by the department and SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and same is pending, therefore disallowances made by the AO should be upheld. 15. We have heard both the parties, perused the…