CIT v. Essar Tele

401 ITR 445Supreme Court of India2018#664 most cited

What is CIT v. Essar Tele authority for?

Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, read with Section 14A, applies prospectively. It cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09.

150

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. · Essar Teleholdings · Section 14A · Rule 8D · prospective application · disallowance exempt income · AY 2008-09 · Rule 8D applicability · Supreme Court

Also reported as

90 Taxmann.com 2286 Taxmann 435

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 115jaemployees contribution to pfsection 114section 36(1)(viia)section 14a(2)section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(vii)section 80icsection 2(24)section 36(1)disallowance under section 14asection 41

Judgments citing CIT v. Essar Tele

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…e under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 82,53,000 Total 95,41,773 Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, it is submitted, at the outset, being prospective and applicable from assessment year 2008-09, does not apply in the relevant year [refer CIT vs Essar Teleholdings Ltd: [2018] 401 ITR 445 (SC); PCIT vs Reliance Natural Resources Lt: [2022] 286 Taxman 435 (SC)]. 9.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have perused the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Essar Teleholdings Ltd (supra); PCIT vs Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (supra), which held that Rule 8D is prospec…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…e under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 82,53,000 Total 95,41,773 Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, it is submitted, at the outset, being prospective and applicable from assessment year 2008-09, does not apply in the relevant year [refer CIT vs Essar Teleholdings Ltd: [2018] 401 ITR 445 (SC); PCIT vs Reliance Natural Resources Lt: [2022] 286 Taxman 435 (SC)]. 9.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have perused the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Essar Teleholdings Ltd (supra); PCIT vs Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (supra), which held that Rule 8D is prospec…

VINAY TARACHAND CHAWLA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
Section 2(47)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…ven by assessee to its subsidiary\ncompany would be covered by meaning of 'capital asset' under\nsection 2(14)' [headnote from taxmann.com]. SLP filed by\ndepartment against above two decisions have been dismissed by\nthe Hon'ble Apex Court in 453 ITR 741 and 286 Taxmann 435\nrespectively.\n\n1.5 Deduction of bad debt being interest receivable from\nChinmaya:\nThe assessee is a partner in Chinmaya. The assessee introduced\nfund from time to time in Chinmaya on which interest receivable\nwas Rs.3,42,57,549/-. This interest was offered to tax year on\nyear on accrual basis as business income and accepted by the\nde…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. PVR LTD

The appeal is dismissed in favour of the

ITA/279/2025HC Delhi01 Sept 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 43(1)

…ITA 279/2025 Page 1 of 7 $~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 01.09.2025 + ITA 279/2025, CM APPL. 48411/2025 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC, Mr. Anant Mann and Mr. P. Gupta, JSCs. versus PVR LTD .....Respondent Through:…

NETPLAST PVT.LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), KANPUR

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

ITA 320/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 69C

…{ "clean_text": "I.T.A. No.320/Lkw/2024\n Assessment Year: 2017-18\n1\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nLUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW\nBEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No.320/Lkw/2024\n Assessment year:2017-18\nM/s Netplast Pvt. Limited,\n2 & 4 UPTRON Estate, Panki,\nKanpur.\nPAN:AAACN5755E\n(Appellant)\nVs. A.C.Ι.Τ.,\nCircle-2(3)(1),\nKanpur.\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by\nShri Rakesh Garg, Advocate\nRespondent by\nShri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT, D.R.\nORDER\nPER SUBHASH MALGURIA: J.M.\n(A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.320/Lkw/2024 has been filed…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Abharana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

…23 & ITA 210, 222 & 297/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank., Bangalore Page 8 of 40 far as substantial; question of law No.2 in ITA No.97/2010 is concerned, the same is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. ESSAR TELEHOLOINGS LTD.',(2018) 401 ITR 445, wherein it has been held that provisions of Section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules are prospective in nature and cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee." 5. In this regard, a memo…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

ITA 222/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessmentYear: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nPAN NO: AAACC6106G\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessmentYear: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAssessme

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250

…/Bang/2023 &\nITA 210, 222 & 297/Bang/2024\nM/s. Canara Bank., Bangalore\nfar as substantial; question of law No.2 in ITA No.97/2010 is\nconcerned, the same is squarely covered by the decision of the\nSupreme Court in 'CIT VS. ESSAR TELEHOLOINGS\nLTD.',(2018) 401 ITR 445, wherein it has been held that provisions of\nSection 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules are prospective\nin nature and cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to\n Assessment Year 2008-09. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial\nquestion of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the\nassessee.\"\n5. In this regard…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit (Cc)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited Cts No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, Vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacf 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

…order and facts available on record. The provisions of Rule 8D are notified on 24.03.2008 and the same is applicable from the Assessment Year 2008-09 as prospectively as held in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Essar Teleholdings Ltd. reported in 401 ITR 445. Thus invoking Rule 8D in this case is not correct. 9.5.2 Further, this issue has also been decided by the Honble ITAT in the appellants own case for the A.Υ 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12 and A.Υ 2012-13. The CIT (A) has also decided this issue for the A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13. The same is discussed as under- 1. The Honb'le ITAT Mumbai J Bench vide…

DCIT (CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD Q, MUMBAI

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3175/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit (Cc)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited Cts No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, Vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacf 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

…order and facts available on record. The provisions of Rule 8D are notified on 24.03.2008 and the same is applicable from the Assessment Year 2008-09 as prospectively as held in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Essar Teleholdings Ltd. reported in 401 ITR 445. Thus invoking Rule 8D in this case is not correct. 9.5.2 Further, this issue has also been decided by the Honble ITAT in the appellants own case for the A.Υ 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12 and A.Υ 2012-13. The CIT (A) has also decided this issue for the A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13. The same is discussed as under- 1. The Honb'le ITAT Mumbai J Bench vide…

CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

ITA 938/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Ms. Brinda Rameswaran, A.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…law framed in ITA 99/2010 are rendered academic and need not be answered. So far as substantial; question of law No.2 in ITA No.97/2010 is concerned, the same is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. ESSAR TELEHOLOINGS LTD.',(2018) 401 ITR 445, wherein it has been held that provisions of Section 114A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules are prospective in nature and cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee." 5. In this regard, a mem…

CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 937/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Brinda Rameswaran, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…law framed in ITA 99/2010 are rendered academic and need not be answered. So far as substantial; question of law No.2 in ITA No.97/2010 is concerned, the same is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. ESSAR TELEHOLOINGS LTD.',(2018) 401 ITR 445, wherein it has been held that provisions of Section 114A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules are prospective in nature and cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee." 5. In this regard, a mem…

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 61/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

…h Court. 14.4 The amended Rule 8D was undisputedly introduced w.e.f 02/06/2016. In the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2014-15, the Tribunal has held Rule 8D to be prospective, as done by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Essar Tele Holdings Ltd. (2018) reported in 90 Taxmann.com 2(SC). The Tribunal followed the said Supreme Court decision. For A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15, the same is the fate of the assessee’s case before the Tribunal and relying thereon has rightly been placed on behalf of the assessee. The factum of the Department being before the Hon’ble High Court in these cases for the years prior to 02/06/2016, the…

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 117/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

…h Court. 14.4 The amended Rule 8D was undisputedly introduced w.e.f 02/06/2016. In the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2014-15, the Tribunal has held Rule 8D to be prospective, as done by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Essar Tele Holdings Ltd. (2018) reported in 90 Taxmann.com 2(SC). The Tribunal followed the said Supreme Court decision. For A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15, the same is the fate of the assessee’s case before the Tribunal and relying thereon has rightly been placed on behalf of the assessee. The factum of the Department being before the Hon’ble High Court in these cases for the years prior to 02/06/2016, the…

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 486/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

…h Court. 14.4 The amended Rule 8D was undisputedly introduced w.e.f 02/06/2016. In the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2014-15, the Tribunal has held Rule 8D to be prospective, as done by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Essar Tele Holdings Ltd. (2018) reported in 90 Taxmann.com 2(SC). The Tribunal followed the said Supreme Court decision. For A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15, the same is the fate of the assessee’s case before the Tribunal and relying thereon has rightly been placed on behalf of the assessee. The factum of the Department being before the Hon’ble High Court in these cases for the years prior to 02/06/2016, the…

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 260/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

…h Court. 14.4 The amended Rule 8D was undisputedly introduced w.e.f 02/06/2016. In the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2014-15, the Tribunal has held Rule 8D to be prospective, as done by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Essar Tele Holdings Ltd. (2018) reported in 90 Taxmann.com 2(SC). The Tribunal followed the said Supreme Court decision. For A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15, the same is the fate of the assessee’s case before the Tribunal and relying thereon has rightly been placed on behalf of the assessee. The factum of the Department being before the Hon’ble High Court in these cases for the years prior to 02/06/2016, the…

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 187/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

…h Court. 14.4 The amended Rule 8D was undisputedly introduced w.e.f 02/06/2016. In the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2014-15, the Tribunal has held Rule 8D to be prospective, as done by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Essar Tele Holdings Ltd. (2018) reported in 90 Taxmann.com 2(SC). The Tribunal followed the said Supreme Court decision. For A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15, the same is the fate of the assessee’s case before the Tribunal and relying thereon has rightly been placed on behalf of the assessee. The factum of the Department being before the Hon’ble High Court in these cases for the years prior to 02/06/2016, the…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4105/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…he provisions of rule 8D is prospective in operation or applies to the appeals for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 pending before us has already been concluded by the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Essar Tele Holdings Page | 34 Ltd in 401 ITR 445 (2008) (SC) wherein it has been held that it is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to assessment year 2008 – 09. In view of this now there is no disallowance which can be made for these assessment years under section 14 A by invoking rule 8D of the income tax rules. Even examining the annexure – 1 wherein…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…hether the provisions of rule 8D is prospective in operation or applies to the appeals for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 pending before us has already been concluded by the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Essar Tele Holdings ` Ltd in 401 ITR 445 (2008) (SC) wherein it has been held that it is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to assessment year 2008 – 09. In view of this now there is no disallowance which can be made for these assessment years under section 14 A by invoking rule 8D of the income tax rules. Even examining the annexure – 1 wherein…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…ovisions of rule 8D is prospective in operation or applies to the appeals for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 pending before us has already been concluded by the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Essar Tele Holdings Page | 34 Ltd in 401 ITR 445 (2008) (SC) wherein it has been held that it is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to assessment year 2008 – 09. In view of this now there is no disallowance which can be made for these assessment years under section 14 A by invoking rule 8D of the income tax rules. Even examining the annexure – 1 wh…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

…eed not be answered. So far as substantial; question of law No.2 in ITA No.97/2010 is concerned, the same is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 28 of 46 ESSAR TELEHOLOINGS LTD.',(2018) 401 ITR 445, wherein it has been held that provisions of Section 114A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules are prospective in nature and can not be applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee." 5. In this regard, a me…

Showing 1–20 of 150 · Page 1 of 8

...