Cheminvestment Ltd. v. CIT

378 ITR 272High Court#20672 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Cheminvestment Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT Cent. Cir. 4(2), Cent. Range - 4, Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6549/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Smiti Samant (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Ms. Aarti Sathe Advocate
Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 5

…consideration. There is no dispute that all investment has been made in the subsidiaries companies as strategic investment so as to get controlling interest in such subsidiaries. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvestment Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 272 (Del), held that, if there is no dividend income, then there cannot be any correspondence allowance. We have noted that the assessee has voluntary disallowed Rs. 13.10 Lakhs as administrative expenses for investment in its associate companies/subsidiaries. The assessee has placed on record fund flow statement (Page 33 of PB), which clearly show t…

Shoppers Stop Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 5246/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhshoppers Stop Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 4(2) Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Eureka Towers, Hon'Ble Bombay High Court –Wing, 9Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Mindspace, Link Road, Malad Point, Mumbai-400021. (West), Mumbai – 400 064. Pan: Aabcs4383A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri V.Justin (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…consideration. There is no dispute that all investment has been made in the subsidiaries companies as strategic investment so as to get controlling interest in such subsidiaries. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvestment Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 272 (Del), held that, if there is no dividend income, then there cannot be any correspondence allowance. We have noted that the assessee has voluntary disallowed Rs. 13.10 Lakhs as administrative expenses for investment in its associate companies/subsidiaries. The assessee has placed on record 4 ITA No.5246/M/2016– Shoppers Stop Ltd. fund flow sta…

Nimbus Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 92Section 92C

…income. Besides this, the dividend income itself is Rs. 7,24,508/-, therefore, disallowance under section 14A cannot be more than the exempt income especially in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd v CIT, reported in 378 ITR 272 (Del), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held that, if there is no dividend income, then there cannot be any corresponding disallowance. On the same principle, if the dividend income is Rs.7.24 lakhs, then disallowance cannot be more than that. Accordingly, we hold that such a huge disallowance of Rs. 2,21,51,600/- is uncalled for and therefore…

Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Nimbus Communications Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1332/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 92Section 92C

…income. Besides this, the dividend income itself is Rs. 7,24,508/-, therefore, disallowance under section 14A cannot be more than the exempt income especially in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd v CIT, reported in 378 ITR 272 (Del), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held that, if there is no dividend income, then there cannot be any corresponding disallowance. On the same principle, if the dividend income is Rs.7.24 lakhs, then disallowance cannot be more than that. Accordingly, we hold that such a huge disallowance of Rs. 2,21,51,600/- is uncalled for and therefore…

Cheminvestment Ltd. v. CIT (378 ITR 272) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax