How many judgments cite CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd.?

470 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. (323 ITR 518), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 8D, Section 143(2), Section 115JB.

CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd.

323 ITR 518High Court2010#150 most cited

What is CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, is not permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income, such as dividend income under Section 10(34), during the year under consideration.

470

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. · Section 14A disallowance · no exempt income earned · Section 10(34) dividend · expenditure nexus · disallowance if no dividend income · 323 ITR 518 · Hero Cycles 14A · exempt income disallowance

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 504 ITR-OL 246221 CTR 435

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 8D Section 143(2)Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 43B

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(34)disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 14a section 115j section 115jb section 37 section 37(1)section 10 section 115 previous year assistant commissioner

Judgments citing CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd.

DCIT 7(1), Mumbai vs. PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3378/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…IT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC) (para 14) iv. CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj) (para 15) v. CIT v.Holcim India (P.) Ltd.(I.T.A.No.486 of 2014 decided on 5- 9-2014) (para 15) vi. CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (para 15) vii. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2015] 4 ITR-OL 246 (P&H) (para 15) viii. CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix.CIT v.Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs.…

M/S Mayur Knits Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 14A

…ddition of Rs.7,00,923/-by way of a disallowance. In appeal the assessee relied upon various decisions including the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India Private Limited [2014] 90 CCH 081 Del-HC and CIT vs Hero cycles 323 ITR 518 (P & H) amongst others. Not convinced with the explanation the addition was upheld. In the said background the Ld. AR inviting attention to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench and the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd (cited supra) submitted that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed…

M/S. Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

ITA 811/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2009-10 Lauls Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle Ii C/O M/S Malhotra Khandelwal & Co. Faridabad 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor Faridabad 121 001 Pan: Aaacl 3118 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Panwal, C.A. and Sh. Rakesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rashmita Jha, Sr. D.R

Section 40

…of Rs.1.86 crores. The advances in question are only Rs.1.64 crores. The assessee has also demonstrated that it has sufficient interest free funds in this case. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340/221 CTR 435 (Mum) has laid down that if there are interest free funds as well as interest bearing funds and if there are interest free advances given, the presumption should be that interest free funds have been advanced. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S.A.Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1 clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. Thu…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kesar Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6651/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. G.N. Gupta, I.T.P

Section 14A

…sment year 2005-06(a copy of which was submitted for reference) by the CIT(Appeals)-III. As the facts of the case being the same during the instant year and in view of the legal position in the case of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Hero Cycle Limited 323 ITR 518, the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Wallfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 326 ITR 1 and in appellant's own case for Assessment Year 1999-2000 decided by ITAT Bench-D Mumbai order dated 11-07-2007, the disallowanc…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1431/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ficer is "8,32,63,000/-. Further the investments is made out of common kitty of interest free own funds and investments in subsidiary company cannot be subject of disallowance under Rule 8D and apply the ratio of decision in the case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 held as under:- ‘’If the investment in shares is out of the non-interest bearing funds, disallowance u/s. 14A is not sustainable; The contention of the revenue that directly or indirectly some expenditure is always incurred which must be disallowed u/s. 14A cannot be accepted Disallowance u/s. 14A requires a finding of incurring of expenditure.…

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1180/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

D.C.I.T, Circle 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.(Now Meged With Icici Bank Ltd W.E.F 12.8.2010), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7094/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, M/S Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. Circle-3(1), (Now Merged With Icici बनाम/ Room No.607, Bank Ltd. On 12.08.2010) Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Icici Bank Tower, 9Th Floor, Mumbai-400020 South East Wing Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaact7434N

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…nds only and not from the borrowed funds. In such a situation, the assessee gets support from the decision in Rajasthan state warehousing corporation vs CIT (242 ITR 450)(SC), CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340)(Bom.), CIT vs Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H) and various decisions of the Tribunal mentioned at page-5 of the impugned order. It is further noticed that the assessee itself offered an amount of Rs.18,12,188/- being 1/2% of the average value of the investment as per rule 8D(2)(iii) of the rules, therefore, considering the aforementioned decisions, we find no infirmity in the impugne…

Glance Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5792/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Glance Investments (India) Ito, Private Limited, Ward-2(1)(4), बनाम/ Office No.2, Crescent Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chambers, 3Rd Floor, 56 M.K.Road, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400023 Pan No.Aabcg5421D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…5 (Karnataka) and the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in Godery Philip India Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA No.7682/Mum/2010) held that no disallowance u/s 14A should be made on opening balance of investment. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 518, Gujarat High Court in CIT vs UTI Bank Ltd. (215 taxman 8)(Guj.) and the Tribunal in CIT vs M/s Jayshree Petro Chemicals Ltd. (ITA No.7292/Mum/ 2011) held that, where no expenditure has been incurred, there is no question of disallowance as per Rule-8D(2)(iii). In the present/current year, since, no dividend income was earned by the assessee, the…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit, M/S Gateway Distriparks Circle-3(1), Ltd. B 1/3, Emca House बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Sahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaacg3425C (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 80I

…Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC) (para 14) iv. CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj) (para 15) v. CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. (I. T. A. No. 486 of 2014 decided on 5- 9-2014) (para 15) vi. CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (para 15) vii. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2015] 4 ITR-OL 246 (P&H) (para 15) viii. CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix. CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. v…

M/S. Milkfood Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1183/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Smt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillaismt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…o.299/2014) in the case of CIT Vs. Holcim India P.Ltd. - Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in CIT Vs. M/s Lakhani Marketing Incl. (ITA No.970/2008 decided on 2- 4-2014). - Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 518; and - Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. 319 ITR 204. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In view of the aforementioned decisions, relied upon by the assessee, wherein a consistent view has been taken that where no exempt income is earned, there c…

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S A.K.G Finvest Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1341/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 73

…fore, Section 14A cannot be invoked. Hence, the 9 AKG Finvest ltd. , AY 2009-10 two asset theory is not applicable in this case as there is no expenditure incurred in terms of Section 14A. 15. Further Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 held that – “In view of finding reproduced above, it is clear that the expenditure on interest was set off against the income from interest and the investment in the share and funds were out of the dividend proceeds. In view of this finding of fact, disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable. Whether, in a given situation, any expenditure…

Anand Desai (Advocate), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 6418/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/6418/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Anand Desai(Advocate) Acit-11(2) 64, Suvas Apartment 68F, Mumbai. Vs. L. Jagmohan Marg,Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Aabpd 2050 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Arvind Kumar Assessee By: Sh. P.J. Pardiwala & Ms. Aarti Sathe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.04.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.14.8.2018 Of Cit(A)-3,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual,Filed His Return Of Income On 30.9.2009,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2.84 Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment On 23.12.2011 U/S. 143(3)Of The Act,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2.91 Crores.The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Is About Disallowance Made U/S. 14A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.J. Pardiwala & Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/6418/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Anand Desai(Advocate) ACIT-11(2) 64, Suvas Apartment 68F, Mumbai. Vs. L. Jagmohan Marg,Mumbai-400 006. PAN:AABPD 2050 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Arvind Kumar Assess…

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Enercon India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4089/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6751/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Enercon India Limited, –Range 8(1), Enercon Tower, A-9, Room No.210, Veera Industrial Estate, फनधभ/ Aayakar Bhavan, Veera Desai Road, Vs. M.K.Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053

For Appellant: Shri Manjunatha SwamyFor Respondent: Shri J P Bairagra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(a)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6751/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax M/s Enercon India Limited, –Range 8(1), Enercon Tower, A-9, Room No.210, Veera Industrial Estate, फनधभ/ Aayakar Bhavan, Veera Desai Road, Vs. M.K.Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4089/Mum/…

A.C.I.T. 8(1), Mumbai vs. Enercon India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Manjunatha SwamyFor Respondent: Shri J P Bairagra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(a)

The Investment Trust of India Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1349/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…ntures in the books of Accounts and Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure under presumption of direct nexus attributable to exempt income. The ld. Authorised Representative filed submissions and relied on judicial decision of CIT vs. Hero Cycles (323 ITR 518) (P & H) and decisions of Mumbai High Court. But the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) distinguished the decision and relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg co. 328 ITR 81 and held that Rule 8D is applicable from assessment year 2008-09 and the ld. Authorised Representative contented that the Deb…

Ramnord Research Laboratories P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8453/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR)

Section 14ASection 23(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 8453/MUM/2010 (Assessment Year 2007-2008) M/s. Ramnord Research Vs. Addl. CIT – Range 11(1) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 77, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) PAN No.AAACR3428A Assessee by : Shri Naresh Jain Department by : Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 02.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2016 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM :- The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 2.9.2010 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-3,…

Yardley Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) -3, Mumbai

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5419/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5419/M/15 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Yardley Investment & Income Tax Officer 1(3)(2) बनाम/ Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. 01, Pearl Mansion, (N)(91), Mumbai - 400020 M. K. Road, Mumbai - 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy0327M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Jadhav

Section 14Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“आई” "यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5419/M/15 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Yardley Investment & Income Tax Officer 1(3)(2) बनाम/ Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. 01, Pearl Mansion, (N)(91), Mumbai - 400020 M. K. Road, Mumbai - 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACY0327M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by: Shri. V. S. Ja…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1565/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.John Distilleries Ltd., No.110, Pantharapaly,A Mysore Road, Bangalore-39. … Appellant Pan:Aaacj 4322 P Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(5), Bangalore. … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ****** Assessee By : Shri H.V.Gowthama, Ca. Revenue By : Shri T.N.Prakash, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri H.V.Gowthama, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N.Prakash, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mption should be drawn that only free funds are utilised for making investments and therefore, held that no disallowance should made under the said provision. The reasoning of the ld.CIT(A) is supported by the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. (323 ITR 518) ii. CIT vs. Gujarat Industries Ltd. (218 Taxman 142); and iii. CIT vs. Kribhco (349 ITR 618) and iv. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) In the abovementioned cases, it has been held that it should be presumed that the assessee used own funds for making investments where assessee had both own funds as well as borrowed funds. The ld.CI…

M/S John Distilleries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1429/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri H.V.Gowthama, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N.Prakash, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Pahilajrai Jaikishan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…-SB)- (2012) 22 taxmann.com 88 e) Maxopp Investments Limited & Ors. V. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 162(Del.) f) Kodak India Private Limited v. Addl. CIT (ITA No 7349/Mum/2012) g) ACIT v. SIL Investment Limited(2012) 50 SOT 54(Del.) h) CIT v. Hero Cycles Limited (2010) 323 ITR 518(P&H.) & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 We will now review all the above decisions in the light of our above discussions as above: a) CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited (2010) 326 ITR 1(SC) , whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that expenditure incurred as is referred to in Section 14A of the Act refers to the expenditure in respect t…