CIT v. Essar Tele

401 ITR 445Supreme Court of India2018#471 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.

198

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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

M/S. P.R. Forgings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 421/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

M/S. Environs Management (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 420/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 8.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of 13 M/s.Environs Management (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleho…

M/S. Infobells Inferactive Solutions, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 411/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Infobells Interactive Solutions, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.12, 2Nd Floor, 8Th V Block, Circle – 4(3)(1), K R Nanjappa Layout, Vs. Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aacfi 7614 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 43B

…efit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/214/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…s below triggered the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules even for AY 2007-2008 when the same came into force only in AY 2008-2009. [See Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.1 (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC)] 1“Important principles of statutory interpretation 22. The legislature has plenary power of legislation within the fields assigned to them; it may legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. It is a settled principle of statutory construction that every statute is prima…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/215/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…s below triggered the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules even for AY 2007-2008 when the same came into force only in AY 2008-2009. [See Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.1 (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC)] 1“Important principles of statutory interpretation 22. The legislature has plenary power of legislation within the fields assigned to them; it may legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. It is a settled principle of statutory construction that every statute is prima…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/213/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…s below triggered the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules even for AY 2007-2008 when the same came into force only in AY 2008-2009. [See Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.1 (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC)] 1“Important principles of statutory interpretation 22. The legislature has plenary power of legislation within the fields assigned to them; it may legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. It is a settled principle of statutory construction that every statute is prima…

DCIT 11 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Qing Ambay Developers Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal is Allowed

ITA 7128/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mishra, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Oil Industry Development Board [2019] 262 Taxmann 102 [SC], wherein it is held that In the absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/ s 14A 86 Rule 8D of the Act of any amount is not permissible (Essar Teleholdings 401 ITR 445 (SC) followed, Cheminvest 378 ITR 33 (Del) approved) 6.4 Further reliance was placed on following cases: a). The Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.(85 taxmann.com 13) b). Hon'ble Apex Court's dismissal of SLP filed by the revenue against the decision given by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT. (Central)-1 v…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…ns: - CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1(SC) - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) - Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.: [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) Hero Motocorp…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…ns of said Rule are prospective in nature and are, thus, applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards and were not applicable during the relevant assessment year 2005-06. The Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions: - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - Maxxop Investment Ltd. v. CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) 3.0.4 The Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that the assessing officer made an ad hoc disallowance of 0.5% of the average Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT investment by applying Rule 8D automatically, without pointing out any specific expenditure having being incurred by the asse…

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…ns of said Rule are prospective in nature and are, thus, applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards and were not applicable during the relevant assessment year 2005-06. The Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions: - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - Maxxop Investment Ltd. v. CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) 3.0.4 The Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that the assessing officer made an ad hoc disallowance of 0.5% of the average Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT investment by applying Rule 8D automatically, without pointing out any specific expenditure having being incurred by the asse…

M/S Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corpn., Panchkula vs. ACIT, Panchkula

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 275/CHANDI/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: The Itat. That In The First Round The Itat Had Held The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, For The Purposes Of Disallowing Expenses Relating To Exempt Income, Applicable In The Facts Of The Present Cases On Noting That The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income In The Form

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Meenakshi Vohra, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 250(6)

…cable from AY 2008-09. It is well settled law that the provisions of Section 14A and Rule 8D would operate prospectively. For this reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- Commissioner of Income-tax v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC…………….. GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. 328 itr 0081 (Bom.)……………….. MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. & ORS. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX* (2012) 247 CTR 0162:………………….. In view of above, we submit that the provisions of Section 14(2), Section 14(3) and Rule 8D are not applicable to the year under consideration. Thus t…

Ntt Data Global Delivery Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2028/BANG/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2028/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14A

…ITA No.2028/Bang/2016 NTT Data Global Delivery Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Keane India Limited), Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2028/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 NTT Data Global Delivery Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Keane India Limited) Deputy Commissioner of 17 & 17/1, South End Road Income-tax Vs. Basavangudi Circle-5(1) Bengaluru-560 004 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCK7777J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Nageshwar Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar,…

Shri Shankarlal Vishwkarma, Katni vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC- TDS, Ghaziabab

In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed

ITA 89/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesanassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 200ASection 200CSection 231ESection 234ASection 234E

…r as levy of fee under Section 234E is set aside and fee levied is deleted. However, the other adjustment made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned intimation shall stand as such.” 6. The Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Essar Teleholding Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253 certain occasion to consider the applicability of missionary provision. In other words, when the Parliament introduced Section 14A for disallowance of expenditure for earning the exempt income the missionary provision was made in Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.87-89/JAB/2019 (AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Pooran Lal Vi…

Shri Shankarlal Vishwkarma, Katni vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC- TDS, Ghaziabab

In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed

ITA 88/JAB/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesanassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 200ASection 200CSection 231ESection 234ASection 234E

…r as levy of fee under Section 234E is set aside and fee levied is deleted. However, the other adjustment made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned intimation shall stand as such.” 6. The Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Essar Teleholding Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253 certain occasion to consider the applicability of missionary provision. In other words, when the Parliament introduced Section 14A for disallowance of expenditure for earning the exempt income the missionary provision was made in Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.87-89/JAB/2019 (AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Pooran Lal Vi…

Pooran Lal Vishwakarma, Katni vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the three appeals stand allowed

ITA 87/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesanassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 200ASection 200CSection 231ESection 234ASection 234E

…r as levy of fee under Section 234E is set aside and fee levied is deleted. However, the other adjustment made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned intimation shall stand as such.” 6. The Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Essar Teleholding Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253 certain occasion to consider the applicability of missionary provision. In other words, when the Parliament introduced Section 14A for disallowance of expenditure for earning the exempt income the missionary provision was made in Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The 6 | P a g e ITA Nos.87-89/JAB/2019 (AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Pooran Lal Vi…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Kingfisher Finvest India Ltd

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/100/2015HC Karnataka29 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE(ACJ),M.I.ARUN

Section 14ASection 260

…background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for revenue, while inviting the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 5, MUMBAI VS. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LIMITED’ (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME – TAX VS. SYNDICATE BANK’ (2020) 115 TAXMANN.COM 287 (KAR), fairly submitted that sub-sections (2) and (3) were inserted in Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2006 and the aforesaid amendments are prospective in nature and apply in relation to the…

Ingersoll-Rand (India) Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax 1

In the result, the appeals are

ITA/6/2011HC Karnataka11 Mar 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA I.T.A. NO.6/2011 C/W I.T.A. NO.7/2011 & I.T.A. NO.8/2011 I.T.A. NO.6/2011 BETWEEN: INGERSOLL-RAND (INDIA) LIMITED PLOT NO.35, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA BIDADI, BANGALORE-562109 (REP. BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY MR. P.R. SHUBHAKAR) PREVIOUSLY AT SOLITAIRE CORPORATE PARK IV UNIT NOS.411 & 412 I FLOOR, ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI. ... APPELLANT (By Sri. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV., FOR M/S. KING &…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Syndicate Bank

ITA/97/2010HC Karnataka17 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 260

…0 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 16 of the Supreme Court in ‘CIT VS. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS 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. In view of pre…

M/S. Vikon Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3345/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3345/Del/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) Vikon Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 31, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Centre Circle – 5, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan : Aabcv 7701 K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3345/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) Vikon Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, 31, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Centre Circle – 5, New Delhi. New Delhi (PAN : AABCV 7701 K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Saurabh Rastogi, C.A. Respondent by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 12.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-24, Ne…

Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 151/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…contention that the amendment brought in Finance Act 2013 in Explanation (1) to section 10(10D) is prospective in nature, assessee relied following judgments: 1. Nirmal Textiles (1997) 224 ITR 378 (Gujarat High Corut) 2. CIT vs. Essar Teleholding Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253 3. CIT vs. M/s Shah Sadiq and Sons (1987) 3 SCC 516 4. CIT vs. Vatika Township Private ltd. (2015) 1SCC 1 5. CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 9. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) vehemently argued strongly supporting the detailed finding of Ld. Pr. CIT. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before…