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 367,154 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

Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7731/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.7731/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Ameer Trading Ito 2(1)(1), Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 310B, Veer Savarkar Marg, बनाम/Vs. Mumbai बनाम बनाम बनाम Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 Pan: Aabca 0761A (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'यथ% &'यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% &'यथ% &'यथ% Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 14Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘ए’ मुंबई । मुंबई । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई । मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI सव" "ी सव" "ी राजे"" राजे"", , , , लेखा सद"य एवं लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय गग" "ी संजय गग", "याियक सद"य के "याियक सद"य के सम" । सम" । सव" सव" "ी "ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा सद"य एवं लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय गग" "ी संजय गग" "याियक सद"य के "याियक सद"य के सम" । सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No.7731/M/2011 आयकर अपील सं…

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Urban Infrastructure Holding P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1979/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit- 8(3)(1), Mumbai – Vs. Urban Infrastructure Holding Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 400 020 Jai Centre, 34 Pd Mello Road, Opp. Rd Gate, Masjid – 400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aajcs2680L Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14aSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…d finding so recorded by CIT(A) at para 3.3 are as per material on record, therefore, do not require any interference on our part. 6. Learned AR Shri Madhur Agarwal also placed on record the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd., 378 ITR 33 wherein it was held that no disallowance u/s.14A can be made where 4 M/s.Urban Infrastructure & Holding Pvt. Ltd., there is no exempt income earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year. 7. We had carefully gone through the decision of the Delhi High Court wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under:- The expression “does not form part…

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 8540/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8540/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle-10(3) Acrolab Limited], Mumbai बिधम/ 201 Devarata, Vs. Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs8104P (Appellant) : ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. N.K Chand, CIT

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 57Section 92C

…at no dividend income has been received in the P a g e | 10 year under consideration, so there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the ‘Act’ in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of : Cheminvest India Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del). We thus in light of the aforesaid alternative contention of the assessee, therein direct that the A.O shall also consider the same while readjudicating the issue in the course of the set aside proceedings. The ‘Ground of appeal no. 1’ raised by the assessee before us is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 4. That the Ld. A.R further adv…

Ub Infrastructure Projects Limited vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT(ITAT-3)(DR)

Section 14ASection 234B

…of 4 exempted dividend income. Therefore, in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance us/. 14A is not possible. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Del). In order to demonstrate that assessee does not have any exempt income, our attention was invited to the copy of the Profit & Loss account and the Balance Sheet which is available at pages 27 to 28 of the compilation of the assessee. 4. The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(Appeals). 5. Having carefully examined the orders…

Vijay Industries, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 778/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.C.Verma (Addl. CIT)

Section 14Section 14A

…A.Y 06-07 in as much as the investment in shares remains at Rs. 18.77 lacs. Further, the assessee has also not received any dividend income and thus no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. ITO 378 ITR 33 dt. 02.09.2015. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon’ble ITAT for A.Y. 06-07, the disallowance made u/s 14A be directed to be deleted. 4. It is further submitted that for A.Y. 09-10 to A.Y. 11-12, the Hon’ble ITAT vide order dt. 21.10.2016 restored the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the file of the AO to verify the nexus between the…

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Rossell India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2774/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata V/S. M/S Rossell India Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 21/1A/3, Darga Road, Square, Kolkata-69 Jindal Towers, Block B, 4Th Floor, Park Circus, Kolkta-700 017 [Pan Noaabcr 3736 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…) Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA No. 847/Kol/2013], Integrated Coal Mining Ltd. s. DICIT [ITA No. 1146/Kol/2012], All Bank Finane Ltd. vs. JCIT [ITA No. 465/Kol/2013], ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) and Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del). ITA No.2774/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 DCIT Cir-4, Kol Vs. M/s Rossell India Ltd. Page 15 5) Without prejudice to the above, it is further submitted that while considering the average value of assets for the purpose of applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) AO erred in considering incorrect figure of average value of total assets amounting to Rs.83,68,33,876/-…

Saurabh Agrotech (P) Ltd., Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 779/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 14ASection 80

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No. 779/JP/16 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Saurabh Agrotech (P) Ltd. C/o The Asstt. Commissioner of Vs. M/s K.L. Datta & Co., CA. Income Tax, Circle-1, Alwar Vashitha Plaza,2, Manu Mar, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AADCS 4522 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No. 855/JP/16 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 201…

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bgh Exim Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3703/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Ms. Anupama Singla( D. R.)For Respondent: Shri Ronak G. Doshi & Ritu Punjabi

Section 14A

…el. 56-62 High Court) 6 Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd. v. 63-73 DCIT (145 ITD 17) (Chennai) No disallowance u/s. 14A when no dividend income is earned 7 CIT v. Delite Enterprised (income Tax Appeal 74-85 No. 110 of 2009 (Bom) 8 Cheminvest Ltd.v. CIT (378 ITR 33) (Del) (High 86-92 Court) 9 Avshesh Mercantile P. Ltd. v. DCIT(26 93-103 taxmann.comm43) (Mum) 10 Wind World Wind Farms (India) Ltd. v. DCIT 104-110 (I.T. Act No. 2712/Mum.2014) 11 ACIT v. M. Baskaran (152 ITD 844) (Chennai) 115-116 6. Ld. Counsel submitted that the case was covered in his favour in view of the aforesaid judgment, therefore, o…

Spencer'S Retail Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 96/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar Singh, JCIT

…he ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of the Special Bench on which the CIT(A) placed reliance has since been reversed by the 9 10 M/s. Spencer’s Retail Limited A.Yr.2008-09 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 317 ITD 33 (Delhi). It was brought to our notice that the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata in the case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol-Trib) has held that it is only the investments which yields dividend during the previous year that has to be considered while adopting the average value of investments for the purpose of Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) of the Rules. Th…

Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Patel Energy Resources Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 7323/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negia C I T – 10(3)(2) M/S. Patel Energy Resources Ltd. Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor Parel Estate, Off S.V. Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaecp5477H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sachchidanand DubeFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…g the AO’s views, the assessee’s submissions in the matter and the judicial pronouncements on this issue. It is submitted that the facts of the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (378 ITR 33) (Del). 3.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. It is seen that the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D after considering the AO’s views, the assessee’s contentions, the facts of the case and…

DCIT (It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Antwerp Diamond Bank Nv., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7482/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…of the Income-tax Act,1961 in case there is no exempt income is now well settled and one can refer to the following cases wherein the said proposition has been upheld:  CIT v/s. Delite Enterprises (ITA No.110 of 2009) (Bom)  Cheminvest Ltd., v/s. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi)  ACIT vs. Lafarge India Holding (P) Ltd., (2008)-(19 SOT 121) (Mum Trib)  CIT v/s.Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 230 Taxman 63 (Allahabad)  CIT v/s.Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., (233 Taxman 130) (Gujarat)  ACIT v/s. Mr.M. Baskaran (ITA No.1717/Mds/2013)  CIT v/s.Lakhani Marketing Inc. (2015) 226 Taxman 45 (P & H)  Huntsman Internationa…

DCIT (It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Antwerp Diamond Bank Nv., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7481/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S Sangita Securities Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 599/KOL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dcit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Sangita Securities Xxvii, Aaykar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., 1A, Grant Poorva 5Th Floor, Room Lane, Room No. 206, No. 510, 110 Shantipally Kolkata-700 012 [Pan No.Aaics 8877 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…CC-XXVII, Kol. Vs. M/s Sangita Securities Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 It is pertinent to mention that the decision as relied on by the learned CIT-A has been overruled by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33. The relevant extract of the order judgment is reproduced below for ready reference : “23. In the context of the facts enumerated hereinbefore the Court answers the question framed by holding that the expression ‘does not form part of the total income’ in Section 14A of the envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income, which is not i…

Videocon Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1310/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…y exempt income, then there is no question of any disallowance u/s. 14A in relation to that income. In support, he relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Delite Enterprises ITA No. 110/2009 (Bombay HC); ii) Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (ITA No. 749/2014) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC); iii) CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd 223 Taxman 130 (Gujarat HC); iv) CIT (11) Kanpur vs. M/s. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. 272 CTR 277 (Allahabad HC); v) CIT v. Lakhani Marketing lnc. [2014] 272 CTR 265 (Punjab and Haryana HC); vi.) CIT vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. 319 ITR 204 (Punjab and Haryana HC); vii) CIT-IV vs. Holcim India Pr…

Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6566/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…following the same, I direct the AO to restrict the disallowance at Rs.20,000/- and hence, this issue of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. My view is fortified by the recent decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT 378 ITR 33(Delhi).” 5. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs.4,02,992/- out of Rs. 4,22,992/-. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.2.2017. sd (D.T.GAR…

Priya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD), Cir 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3231/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Priya Ltd. Dcit(Osd), Circle-2(3), 209-210, Kimatraj Building बनाम/ R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, 02 Floor, 77/79 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd), Priya Ltd. 209-210, Kimatraj Building Circle-2(3), बनाम/ 02 Floor, 77/79 R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…find that an elaborate discussion has been made by the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee. No contrary decision/facts were brought to our notice by either side and more specifically the Revenue. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chem Invest Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) ; (2015) 281 CTR 447 (Del.) held that section 14A of the Act will not apply, where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant Assessment Year. While coming to this decision, the Hon'ble High Court followed the decision of CIT vs Holcim India P. Ltd. (2015) 57 taxman.com 28(Del.)(para-19) and another decision in Maxopp In…

Lakhani Shoee Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 854/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Vasudeva (C.A)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Chandel (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 854/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13. cuke M/s Lakhani Shoe Co. Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Plot No. 130, Sector-24, Circle-2, Faridabad – 121005 Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAACL 2991 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.C. Vasudeva (C.A) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenu…

Acg Arts & Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

ITA 7582/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ashwanitanejaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143Section 14A

…lowance u/s 14A, this strategic investment should be excluded and disallowance can be made only on the balance amount of investment. In support of his argument he placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 and judgement of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of J.M. Financial Consultants Private Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1863/M/2013 and Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5748 and 248 of 2012) (Mum. Trib). Per contra Ld. DR relied upon the order of Lower Authorities. 3.We have considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel before…

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 3091/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi & Vipul Mody -ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ बी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“B”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3091/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Bharat Serums & Vaccines Ltd. ACIT, Range-3(1) 27th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. Mumbai-21. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACB 2431 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)…

Aarti Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 6783/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No. 6783-84/Mum/2014,िनधा" रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 आयकर िनधा"रण आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा" िनधा" रण रण वष" वष" Aarti Drugs Limited Addl. Cit, Range-6(1) Plot No.109, ‘D’ 3Rd Floor, Mahendra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Vs. Indl Estate.Sion(E), Mumbai-400 022. Pan: Aaaca 4410 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10 .02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 10Section 14Section 14ASection 254(1)

…t assessee had made investment of Rs. 21.37crores, that it had earned exempt income of Rs.50,944/-. He relied upon the cases of Reliance Utilities Ltd(313ITR340),HDFC Bank Ltd.(366 ITR 505) Joint Investments(372 ITR 694)ACB India(374 ITR 108) Cheminvest Ltd. (378 ITR 33).The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 2.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that during the year under consideration the assessee had claimed exemption of Rs.50,944/-u/s.10 (34) of the Act, that it had made a disallowance of Rs. 2 lakhs on its own, that the AO made a di…