CIT v. Essar Tele

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

…Sanjay Kumar, first of all submitted that the provision of Rule 8D cannot be made applicable for the assessment year 2007-08 and in support he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. reported in (2108) 401 ITR 445. Thus, the very basis for computing the disallowance is untenable in law. He further submitted that, it is a well settled principle that, if assessee has huge surplus interest free funds then it cannot be presumed that interest bearing funds have been diverted for the purpose of investment. Moreover, here in this case assessee has duly demonstrat…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

…Sanjay Kumar, first of all submitted that the provision of Rule 8D cannot be made applicable for the assessment year 2007-08 and in support he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. reported in (2108) 401 ITR 445. Thus, the very basis for computing the disallowance is untenable in law. He further submitted that, it is a well settled principle that, if assessee has huge surplus interest free funds then it cannot be presumed that interest bearing funds have been diverted for the purpose of investment. Moreover, here in this case assessee has duly demonstrat…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…o highlight this fact. The Ld. CIT(DR) fairly admitted that Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, inserted by the IT (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008, w.e.f. 24-3-2008; was not applicable before AY 2008-09, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Essar Teleholdings Ltd. 401 ITR 445 (SC); Section 14A of I.T. Act mandating disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income was inserted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1962; and in that view, the disallowance U/s 14A of I.T. Act was required to be made. He further submitted that although the Ld. CIT(A), in his im…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…o highlight this fact. The Ld. CIT(DR) fairly admitted that Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, inserted by the IT (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008, w.e.f. 24-3-2008; was not applicable before AY 2008-09, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Essar Teleholdings Ltd. 401 ITR 445 (SC); Section 14A of I.T. Act mandating disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income was inserted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1962; and in that view, the disallowance U/s 14A of I.T. Act was required to be made. He further submitted that although the Ld. CIT(A), in his im…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07 North Delhi Power Ltd., Vs Acit, Range – 13, Grid Sub Station Building, Delhi Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R & Ita No.31/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Range – 13, Vs North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi Grid Sub Station Building, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.D. Kapila,Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Shri Pravesh Sharma, Advocate Revenue By Ms Shefali Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 8.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…ent compliance with the requirement of 14 A (2) of the act. 29. Now coming to the argument that Rule 8D is only prospective in its operation and has no application to the assessment year 2006-07, the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd (2018) 401 ITR 455 (SC) held that Rule 8D is prospective and applies only from the assessment year 2008-09. Inasmuch as Rule 8D has no application to the assessment year 2006-07, the disallowance under section 14A has to be computed on some reasonable basis as has been held in several decisions of the jurisdictional High Court including the one in Maxopp Investment…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S North Delhi Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07 North Delhi Power Ltd., Vs Acit, Range – 13, Grid Sub Station Building, Delhi Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R & Ita No.31/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Range – 13, Vs North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi Grid Sub Station Building, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.D. Kapila,Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Shri Pravesh Sharma, Advocate Revenue By Ms Shefali Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 8.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…ent compliance with the requirement of 14 A (2) of the act. 29. Now coming to the argument that Rule 8D is only prospective in its operation and has no application to the assessment year 2006-07, the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd (2018) 401 ITR 455 (SC) held that Rule 8D is prospective and applies only from the assessment year 2008-09. Inasmuch as Rule 8D has no application to the assessment year 2006-07, the disallowance under section 14A has to be computed on some reasonable basis as has been held in several decisions of the jurisdictional High Court including the one in Maxopp Investment…

M/S North Delhi Power Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07 North Delhi Power Ltd., Vs Acit, Range – 13, Grid Sub Station Building, Delhi Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R & Ita No.31/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Range – 13, Vs North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi Grid Sub Station Building, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn6808R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.D. Kapila,Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Shri Pravesh Sharma, Advocate Revenue By Ms Shefali Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 8.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…ent compliance with the requirement of 14 A (2) of the act. 29. Now coming to the argument that Rule 8D is only prospective in its operation and has no application to the assessment year 2006-07, the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd (2018) 401 ITR 455 (SC) held that Rule 8D is prospective and applies only from the assessment year 2008-09. Inasmuch as Rule 8D has no application to the assessment year 2006-07, the disallowance under section 14A has to be computed on some reasonable basis as has been held in several decisions of the jurisdictional High Court including the one in Maxopp Investment…

M/S. Indiabulls Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year : 2008-09

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 Indiabulls Capital Services Ltd., Vs. ACIT, F-60, Malhotra Building, Range-11, IInd Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AABCI3613B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocates & Mrs. Pankaj Jain, CA Department By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 02.08.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee arises out of th…