CIT v. Deepak Mittal

361 ITR 131High Court2014#1729 most cited

What is CIT v. Deepak Mittal authority for?

The Assessing Officer must record explicit dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim or calculation of expenses related to exempt income before applying Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A. This principle also extends to the requirement of adequate inquiry before allowing or disallowing Chapter VI-A deductions like Section 80P.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Deepak Mittal · 361 ITR 131 · Section 14A · Rule 8D · disallowance exempt income · AO satisfaction · recording dissatisfaction · adequate enquiry · Section 80P deduction · Chapter VI-A deductions

Also reported as

219 Taxmann 31438 Taxmann.com 83

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Deepak Mittal

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…Explanation will take effect from 1- 4-2022 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect. 26 34.1 The appellant also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Deepak Mittal (2014) 361 ITR 131 to the effect that in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer as to why the calculation made by the assessee is not correct, the disallowance made by him on account of administrative expenses under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is not as per law. 35. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by Ld. AR and…

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the grounds raised are sustained and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Pr. Cit, 200, Sec.-7A, Faridabad. Faridabad, Haryana. 121 001 Pan: Aalpg5795M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. Pcit) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.11.2017 Passed U/S. 147/148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 1(1), Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, It Was Pointed Out By Ld. Ar That An Application For Condonation Of Delay Of 324 Days Has Been Filed Supported With An Affidavit. On Hearing Upon The Same, It Comes Up That The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Upto 11.05.2020 & Due To Covid-19 Restrictions, In View Of The Directions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.03/2020, The Period Between 15.03.2020 & 28.02.2022 Has To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Calculation Of Limitation & In The Light Of The Aforesaid, The Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…assessment order and its review only from a different aspect and on different opinion is not permissible under law for which he relied on the following judgements/orders of ITAT:- (i) DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 0388 (Delhi); (ii) CIT Vs. Deepak Mittal 324 ITR 411 (P & H); (iii) Arun Kumar Garg HUF, ITA No. 3391/D/2018, Order dt. 08.01.2019; (iv) Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1036/D/2021, order dt. 16.03.2023; and (v) M/s Amira Enterprises Ltd. ITA No. 3206/D/2017, order dt. 29.11.2017 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there is no error in the findings of the ld. PCIT and the ld. AO had commit…

Showing 120 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

CIT v. Deepak Mittal (361 ITR 131) — Cited in 66 Judgments | BharatTax