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 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

Kailash Royal Premium Projects Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3316/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 234A

…on. She submitted that therefore, it has to be accepted that there is no exempt income in the present year. She placed Page 3 of 4 reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Cheminvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33 and pointed out that as per this judgment, if there is no actual receipt of exempt income which is not part of the total income then in that year, no disallowance is to be made u/s. 14A of IT Act. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. In particular, he drawn our attention to para no. 33 in the order of CIT(A) and submitt…

M/S Ncg Enterprises Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-7, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 613/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar,C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 14A

…g the jurisdictional Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the ITA-613/CHD/2018 Page 2 of 2 case of CIT Faridabad v. Lakhani Marketing INC 226 Taxmann 45 (P&H) and also by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) and further of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 277 (All). In view of this, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Hence, respectfully following the proposition of law laid down by various High Courts, disallowance, if any, made by the lower authorities…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Restore Machines India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 21/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi)

Section 14ASection 250

…-13 M/s. Restore Machines India Pvt. Ltd Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashika Global Securities Ltd. ITAT 100 of 2014, GA 2122 of 2014, judgment dt. 11/06/2018. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-IV [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) has laid down a similar proposition of law. 3. Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in these case-law to the facts of the case on hand, I uphold the finding of the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss these appeals of the revenue. 4. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Kolkata, the 9th day o…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Restore Machines India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 20/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi)

Section 14ASection 250

…-13 M/s. Restore Machines India Pvt. Ltd Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashika Global Securities Ltd. ITAT 100 of 2014, GA 2122 of 2014, judgment dt. 11/06/2018. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-IV [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) has laid down a similar proposition of law. 3. Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in these case-law to the facts of the case on hand, I uphold the finding of the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss these appeals of the revenue. 4. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Kolkata, the 9th day o…

M/S Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

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

ITA 100/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Amandeep Vats, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…sition of 10 A.Y.2012-13 law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Faridabad Vs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. Ltd., 226 Taxman 45 (P&H) and also by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chemnivest Ltd. Vs. ITO (2015) 378 ITR 33. In view of the same since no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the year, which fact has been reiterated time and again before the lower authorities and has remained uncontroverted and which has also been demonstrated by showing that the major investment of Rs.9 crores made in the partnership firm has returned loss, we held that…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ms Allinace Infrastructure Projects Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revene is dismissed

ITA 2402/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Suman Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sri Nandini Das, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 14A

…ITA.2402/Bang/2018 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'A', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.2402/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -2(4), Bengaluru .. Appellant v. M/s. Alliance Infrastructure Projects P. Ltd, No.85, Karthik Nagar, Marathahalli, K. R. Puram, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru 560 037 .. Respondent PAN : AAFCA0404J Assessee by : Shri. Suman Kumar, CA Revenue by : Smt. Sri Nandini Das, Addl. CIT Heard on : 05.12.2018 Pronounced on : 19.12.2018 O R…

Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1142/CHNY/2018[214-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3Rd Floor, Ltu-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan Aaacc 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/CHNY/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3rd floor, LTU-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [PAN AAACC 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1140/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3Rd Floor, Ltu-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [Pan Aaacc 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1140, 1141 & 1142/CHNY/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Computer Age Management Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Services Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Rayala Towers, 3rd floor, LTU-2, 158, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 002. [PAN AAACC 3035G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

Lodhi Property Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi

ITA 3719/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singh, Sh. Satyjeet Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2

…r earned any dividend / exempt income, proceeded to invoke the provisions contained u/s 14A read with Rule 8D in a mechanical manner. 7. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as CHEMINVEST 5 ITA No.3719/Del./2018 LTD. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) while interpreting applicability of Section 14A held as under : “ that no exempted income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year and since the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not in doubt, no disallowance could be made under section 14A.” 8. Hon’ble Delhi High Court while deciding the iden…

Review Mercandise P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1700/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Review Mercandise P. Ltd……...............….……...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dis. Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Aafcr 2003 N ] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1), Kolkata.……........……….........…………..………….…............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Nicholas Murmu, Jcit D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 09/05/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises Before Us Is The Disallowance U/S 14A Of The Act, Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). After Hearing Rival Contentions, We Find That The Undisputed Fact As Recorded By The Assessing Officer At Page 2 Of His Order, Is That The Assessee Has Not Earned Any Dividend Income During The Year. When There Is No Income That Is Exempt From Tax, No Disallowance Can Be Made U/S 14A Of The Act, As Held By The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Ashika Global Securities Ltd. Itat 100 Of 2014, Ga 2122 Of 2014, Judgment Dt. 11/06/2018. The Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cheminvest Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iv [2015] 378 Itr 33 (Delhi) Has Laid Down A Similar Proposition Of Law.

Section 14ASection 250

…held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashika Global Securities Ltd. ITAT 100 of 2014, GA 2122 of 2014, judgment dt. 11/06/2018. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-IV [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) has laid down a similar proposition of law. 2 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Review Mercandise P. Ltd 3. Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in these case-law to the facts of the case on hand, I delete the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and allow this appeal of the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is al…

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Asian Capital Market Limited, Kolkata

In the result, Ground No. 2 & 3 of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1984/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata......…………….......Appellant Vs. M/S. Asian Capital Market Ltd....…...................................…..……………….…...………...............Respondent 4/1, Middleton Street 5Th Floor Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacca 4879 N] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 22Nd, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 07/06/2017, For The Assessment Year 2014-15, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Under Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleting The Disallowance Of Loss Made By The Assessee On Account Of Derivative Trading Of Rs. 2,96,85,183/- 2. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Under Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule 80 Will Not Apply Where No Exempt Income Is Received Or Receivable During The Previous Year By Ignoring The Provisions Of Rule 80 That Provides For Computation Of Expenditure In Respect Of Not Only Those Investments, Income From Which Does Not Form Part Of Total Income But Also Those Investments, Income From Which Shall Not Form Part Of Total Income. 3. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Under Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule 80 Cannot Be Made

Section 14ASection 250

…held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashika Global Securities Ltd. ITAT 100 of 2014, GA 2122 of 2014, judgment dt. 11/06/2018. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-IV [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) has laid down a similar proposition of law. The ld. CIT(A) in this case as restricted the disallowance to Rs.7604/- only. As the assessee has not filed an appeal in this regard, we do not interfere with this order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, Ground No. 2 & 3 of the revenue are dismissed. 8. Ground No. 4 is general in nature. 9. In…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2047/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2047/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcm 2068 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…t this issue is now well settled by the following decisions of various high courts as under;- CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd – (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad HC) CIT vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 486 /2014 (Delhi HC) Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC) CIT vs Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970/2008 dated 2.4.2014 (P&H HC) CIT vs Corrtech Energy Pvt ltd reported in 223 taxman 130 (Guj) CIT vs Shivam Motors Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 88 of 2014 (All HC) 10 11 M/s Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 PCIT vs IL & FS Energy Development Co Ltd (2017) 399 ITR 483 (Del) Respectf…

Punjab Information & Communication Technology Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 49/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2011-12 Punjab Information & Communication Vs. The Acit Technology Corporation Ltd. Circle 2(1) Chandigarh Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. Gurjeet SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh
Section 14ASection 250(6)

…on’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970/2000 (O&M) dt. 02/04/2014 has held so. Even the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Holcim India P. Ltd reported in 90 CCH 81 and in the case of Cheminvest Ltd.vs CIT 378 ITR 33 have reiterated the said proposition . In view of the same, considering the admitted fact in the present case that no exempt income was earned by the assessee, and following the judicial precedent as stated above, we hold, that no disallowance under section 14A was warranted. We therefore set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard allowi…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1473/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…IT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income. By relying upon various decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest v. CIT 378 ITR 33 including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 392 ITR 633, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that in a recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1472/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…IT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income. By relying upon various decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest v. CIT 378 ITR 33 including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 392 ITR 633, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that in a recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal…

M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1085/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…IT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income. By relying upon various decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest v. CIT 378 ITR 33 including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 392 ITR 633, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that in a recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal…

M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1084/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…IT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income. By relying upon various decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest v. CIT 378 ITR 33 including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 392 ITR 633, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that in a recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal…

M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1083/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.S.P. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT
Section 145

…IT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income. By relying upon various decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest v. CIT 378 ITR 33 including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 392 ITR 633, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that in a recent judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…ny had filed objections before the DRP. The DRP in all the relevant years in question, had directed the AO to compute the disallowance in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi High Court) and CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd 272 CTR 282 (Del). 94. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in these cases had held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Act was warranted where investments were made with the objective of acquiring controlling interest in the company and not…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…ny had filed objections before the DRP. The DRP in all the relevant years in question, had directed the AO to compute the disallowance in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi High Court) and CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd 272 CTR 282 (Del). 94. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in these cases had held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Act was warranted where investments were made with the objective of acquiring controlling interest in the company and not…