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

Suremi Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3555/MUM/2013[209-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 3555/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Suremi Trading Private DCIT 5(3) Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhavan D1, Sindhu House M.K. Road Nanabhai Lane Mumbai-400 Flora Fountain Fort 020. Mumbai-400 001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACS5620B Assessee by Ms. Arati Vissanji Department by Ms. Pooja Swarup Date of Hearing 30.1.2017 Date of Pronouncement 03.2.2017 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 11-03-2013 passed by Ld CIT(A)-9, Mu…

DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Nrc Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4125/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd)-2(3), Nrc Ltd. R. No.577, State Bank Of India, Central बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Office, Accounts & Vs. M.K. Road, Compliance Dept. 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400020 Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacn1616J

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3(1)(o)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT(OSD)-2(3), NRC Ltd. R. No.577, State Bank of India, Central बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Office, Accounts & Vs. M.K. Road, Compliance Dept. 14th Floor, Mumbai-400020 Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAACN1616J राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Suman Kumar-DR "नधा"रती क"…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Commodities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4090/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate and Shri Ashish Chadha and Shri Ashish

Section 14A

…exempt income. Therefore, Section 14A cannot be pressed into operation. We find this issue to be covered in favour of 2 ITA-4090/Del/2015 the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT-VI – [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Holcim India P.Ltd. – [2014] 272 CTR 282 (Delhi), wherein Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that if there is no exempt income, then no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made. Admittedly, in the case of the assessee, there is no exempt income. Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdi…

Addl CIT RG 1(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

ITA 114/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जॉसन पी. बोज, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member Assessment Years: 2008-09 DCIT-1(2), M/s Morgan Stanley R. No.535, 5th Floor, India Securities Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mafatlal House, 3rd Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAACM4048B C.O. NO.215/Mum/2015 (Arising out of ITA No.114/Mum/2013) Assessment Years…

Addl CIT RG 1(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

ITA 113/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 14A

M/S. Cheeko Tel Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: SH. K. SAMPATH, ADV. &For Respondent: SH. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…year. He also stated that no tax free income had been earned and also as such no disallowance u/s. 14A should be made. To support his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 378 ITR 33. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). I find considerable cogency in the assessee’s counsel of the assessee that it is not in dispute that assessee has not earned any dividend income or any kind of exempt income from the investment made or no tax free income has been e…

M/S. Hughes Network Systems India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2811/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain and Shri Anshul Sachar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Senior DR

Section 14A

…hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that there is no exempt income during the year under consideration. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT – [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. 2 ITA-2811/Del/2014 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find this issue to be covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdic…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is also partly allowed

ITA 2421/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () I.T.A. No.2421/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 4

…anies were made for the purpose of strategic reasons and acquiring control and not for the purposes of earning exempt income, therefore, this should be excluded while computing disallowance u/s 14A in view of the following judgments:- 1. Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del) 2. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs Addl CIT (ITA No. 5408/Mum/2012 3. M/s JM Financial Ltd vs Addl. CIT (ITA No.4521/Mum/2012) 4. CIT vs. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO as well as the order of the CIT(A) and requested for upholding the disallowance. 7. We have go…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asf Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3964/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CA & Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-3”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3964/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2012-13 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME M/S ASF INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., TAX, VS. 11, BABAR LANE, BENGALI CIRCLE-3(2), MARKET, R.NO. 380-B, CR BUILDING, I.P. NEW DELHI – 110 001 ESTATE, NEW DELHI PAN: AAFCA4680G) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA & Sh. Ashish Chadha, CA ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER This appeal by the Revenue is directed against th…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Sharda Motor Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2588/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: SH. R.K. KAPOOR, ADVFor Respondent: SH. UMESH CHANDER DUBEY, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and decide the same in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 2nd September, 2015 in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13/12/2016. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 13/12/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR*…

ACIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maxima Agrotrade P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3515/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-14(2)(1), M/S Maxima Agrotrade 432, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Capri Building Vs. M.K. Road, Anant, Kanekar Marg, Mumbai-400020 Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafcm0945G

Section 14Section 14A

…ing interest in the company. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Ajay R. Singh, contended that no exempt income was earned by the assessee and he relied upon by the decision from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chem Invest ltd. vs CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) and another decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs M/s Rooftop Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.3481/Mum/2015). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, 3 M/s Maxima Agrotrade Pvt Ltd. are that the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.…

M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 6165/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Deputy M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., 204, Commissioner Of Rohit House, 3, Tolstoy Marg, Income Tax, Circle-14(1), New New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaacp0182F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 23/09/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds: “1.0 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.4.45.076/- U/S.40A(3Ijof The Income-Tax Act, On Wholly Untenable Grounds. 1.1 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Circumstances Under Which The Cash Payment Exceeding The Prescribed Limit U/S.40A(3) Had To Be Made By The Assessee, Although The Payees Were Fully Identified & Even Tds Has Been Made. 1.2 That The Disallowance Made U/S.40A(3) Is Bad In Law.

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…epresentative of the assessee, reiterating the submission made before the lower authorities, submitted that the judgment of the special bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cheminvestment (supra) has been overruled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, reported in 378 ITR 33 . He further submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. 12 AY: 2009-10 Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 372 ITR 694, held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the amount of dividend income only, which is Rs. 2000/- in the case of the assessee and, therefore,…

S.B. & T International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 11(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1054/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.1054/Mum/2015 : िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. S.B.& T International Ltd. Dcit-Circle-11(2)(1) 9, Yusuf Building, Room No.15 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. 1St Floor, A.R. Street, Pydhonie Vs. Mumbai-400 003. Pan:Aaacs 7275 C आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.1152/Mum/2015 : िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-Circle-11(2)(1) Vs. M/S. S.B. & T International Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan ,Mumbai. Mumbai-400 003.. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N.K. Chand -Cit Assessee By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.11.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद", राजे" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- Challenging The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao), Dated 29/12/2014, Passed U/S. 143(3)R.W.S.144C (5)Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp),The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.The Ao Has Challenged The Directions Of The Drp.

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…fficer to examine and not to disallow any expenditure under section 14A if it is found that investment is made in foreign subsidiary. As far as the second contention of the assessee is concerned, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 61 Taxmann.com 118 (Del.), while reversing the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in case of the same assessee held that if in a particular assessment year, assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance under section 14A can be made. It is further observed, while coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court took note of t…

Deutsche Investment India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1276/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Deutsche Investments Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadammarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan: Aaccd 1705 E Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.161/Mum/2014 (In Ita No.3724/Mum/2013- A.Y:2008-09) & M/S. Deutsche Investments Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Kadammarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan: Aaccd 1705 E .. Cross Objector/Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shri Sivaji Gode, Sr. Dr .. Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar .. Date Of Hearing 07-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 07- 11- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)

…d income. He stated that once there is no exempted income u/s 10 (34) of the Act, Revenue cannot invoke the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. For this he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) wherein it is held as under:- “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 Act envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income, which is not includible in the total income, during the r…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Investment India Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3724/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)

Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1473/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm Maharashtra Agro Industries Asst. Commissioner Of Development Corporation Ltd Income Tax, Circule 6 (3) Mumbai, R.No. 522, 5 Th Floor, Krushiudyog Bhavan, Aarey Milk Vs. Colony, Georegaon (E), Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400065 Mumbai-400020 Pan : Aaact1546M .. Appellant Respondent

Section 14Section 143(3)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. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04-11-2016. (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 04-11-2016 Sudip Sarkar/Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //// BY ORD…

M/S Jupiter Entertainment Ventures (P) Ltd vs. ACIT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 792/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

…the assessee in the present year, no disallowance can be made u/s. 14A in the present year and in support of his contention, reliance was placed by her on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs . CIT as reported in 378 ITR 33 (Del). 13. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per the profit & loss account of the assessee for the present year available on pages 11 of PB, there is no income earned by the assessee under the head ‘dividend’ which is exempt u/s 10. In the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) cited by the ld. AR of assessee, it was held by the…

Ameet S. Gandhi, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. 11(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8860/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Shri Ameet S. Gandhi, Flat No.10, Vs. The Astt. Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Gandhi House, Palmera, Income Tax- 11, Altamoount Road, Mumbai -26 Mumbai 400 020. Pan:Acrp0766E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By .. Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Respondent By .. Shri A. Ramachandran, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 18-10-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 18- 10- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…a). Respectfully following the same, we restrict the disallowance at Rs.77,784/- and hence, this issue of the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed.Our 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). 3 5. The next issue of this appeal of the assessee is against the order of the CIT (A) confirming the disallowance out of expenses at Rs.54,480/- out of the total expenses at Rs.2,72,401/- on account of motor car, insurance on car , motor car expense and telephone expenses telephone expenses. 6. We have heard the rival contentions on thi…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 368/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.368/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.28, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 1(2), Ambattur, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacb 2753 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: None

Section 14A

…in allowing the claim of the assessee. 7. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the relevant material available on record. We have also gone through the judgment of Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (378 ITR 33). The Delhi High Court found that when the assessee has not earned any taxable income in the relevant assessment year in question, the corresponding expenditure could not be worked out for disallowance. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519, the Delhi High Court 5 I.T.A. No.368/Mds/16 found…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rooftop Infra Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3481/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Rooftop Infra Projects Pvt. Tax-14(3)(1), Ltd., Room No.455, 4Th Floor, 1St Floor, Capri Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Anant Kanekar Marg, Maharshi Karve Road, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aadcr6244H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B.S. Bist, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, D.R

Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s. Rooftop Infra Projects Pvt. Tax-14(3)(1), Ltd., Room No.455, 4th Floor, 1st Floor, Capri Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Anant Kanekar Marg, Maharshi Karve Road, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 051 PAN: AADCR6244H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.R. Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2016 O R D E R Per San…