CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.

272 CTR 282High Court2014#805 most cited

What is CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

No disallowance under Section 14A can be made when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee, and investments made for business purposes in subsidiaries do not warrant disallowance under Section 14A, even if no dividend income is earned.

128

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. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. · Section 14A · Rule 8D · exempt income · investment in subsidiary · business purpose · dividend income · disallowance

Also reported as

111 DTR 153

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 43BSection 8DSection 80-IASection 115BSection 10

Issues it is cited on

unabsorbed depreciationdisallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 14asection 115jbsection 10section 37previous yearcompanyprescribedindiabusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Coffeeday Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bagalore

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

ITA 459/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Coffeeday Enterprises Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, Central Circle-1(3), Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001. Pan – Aadcc 3995 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: S. Sundar rao CIT
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 M/s Coffeeday Enterprises Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, Central Circle-1(3), Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001. PAN – AADCC 3995 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri C Ramesh, C.A Respondent by : S. Sundar rao CIT Date of hearing : 06.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 07.10.2020 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order d…

M/S Indus-League Clothing Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 210/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Indus League Clothing Limited, No.03, Puttappa Indl. Estate, Whitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore-560 048 ….Appellant Pan Aaaci 5392Q Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri L. Bharath, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…e in relation to tax exempt income. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. We further notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Del) has held that there can be no disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of exempt income. The rationale behind these judgments is that the amount of disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. In this case, on perusal of the facts, we find that the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.24,138, whereas the AO disallowed an amount of Rs Rs.3,36,28,…

ACIT, Circle- 6(1), New Dlhi vs. Clix Finance India Unlimited, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 37/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs Clix Finance India Unlimited Room No. 389, C. R. Building, (Earlier Known As Ge Capital New Delhi Services Ltd), E-20, 1St Floor, Hauz Khas, (Appellant) New Delhi Aaacg0239L (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…on the order of the CIT(A) and further submitted that no exempt income was earned during the present assessment year and no expenditure was incurred. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. 272 CTR 282 and Cheminvest Ltd. reported at 371 ITR 23. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is clear from the records that that there was no exempt income attributable in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, applying Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not appropriate on part of Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) right…

Bahar Agrochem & Feeds Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 63/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bahar Agrochem & Feeds P. Ltd. Dcit-14(1)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, (Since Merged With Godrej Agrovet Ltd.) बनाम/ C/O. M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Aaykar Bhavan Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mk Road, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai 400 020. Fort, Mumbai 400 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-2147-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri M.M.Golvala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…1 Assessment Year :2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bahar Agrochem & Feeds P. Ltd. DCIT-14(1)(1), Room No.460, 4th Floor, (Since merged with Godrej Agrovet Ltd.) बनाम/ C/o. M/s. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP Aaykar Bhavan Esplanade House, 2nd Floor, Vs. MK Road, 29, Hazari…

DCIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Siti Cable Network Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3760/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3760/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-16(1) M/S. Siti Cable Network Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.439 135, Continental Building Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Dr. Annie Besant Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Worli, Mumbai-400 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw-6349-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.157/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3760/Mum/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Siti Cable Network Ltd. Dcit-16(1) बनाम/ 135, Continental Building Room No.439 Dr. Annie Besant Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw-6349-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Jay Bhansali -Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar -Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/06/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 25/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar -Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 57

…International (India) Pvt.Ltd. (ITA 1619 of 2016 dated 30/01/2019) refused to admit the question of law raised by the revenue against the decision of Tribunal which relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court titled as CIT V/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (272 CTR 282) to hold that where there is no exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance u/s 14A could be made. It was also noted by Hon’ble High Court that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (95 Taxmann.com 250) dismissed the Revenue’s SLP against the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Holcim India…

M/S. Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and stay petition is dismissed

ITA 284/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14A

…in relation to tax exempt income. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. We further notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Delhi) has held that there can be no dis allowance under section 14A in the absence of exempt income. The rationale behind these judgments is that the amount of dis allowance cannot exceed exempt income. In this case, on perusal of the facts, we find that the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs. 24,138, whereas the assessing officer disallow…

M/S. Jagdale Industries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1622/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 372 ITR 694 wherein a view was taken that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282 (Del). These decisions were considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd v. ACIT, ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.07.2017 relating to AY 2011-12 and it was held by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Following the aforesaid decisions, we hol…

M/S Global Tech Park Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result ITA No.2287/BANG/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 2287/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Smt R. Premi, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 14A

…018 Page 5 of 11 Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 372 ITR 694 has taken the view that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282 (Del). These decisions were considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd v. ACIT, ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.07.2017 relating to AY 2011-12 and it was held by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Following the aforesaid decisions, we hol…

M/S Global Tech Park Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result ITA No.2287/BANG/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 2286/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Smt R. Premi, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 14A

…018 Page 5 of 11 Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 372 ITR 694 has taken the view that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282 (Del). These decisions were considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd v. ACIT, ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.07.2017 relating to AY 2011-12 and it was held by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Following the aforesaid decisions, we hol…

Omprakash Basantal Goenka, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 943/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh. Mr. Omprakash Basantlal Goenka, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 101, 10Th Floor, Somerset House, Income-Tax, Central Circle- Sofia College Lane, Warden Road, 2(4), Mumbai. Mumbai-400026, Pan No. : Aaecpg3845J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (D.R) Date Of Hearing 23-01-2020 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2020 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, J.M.

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 has held that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D should only be to the extent of tax exempt income. We further note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Del.) there can be no disallowance u/s 14A r.w. r 8D in absence of exempt income. The concept behind this judgement is that the amount of disallowance cannot exceed the 3 ITA No. 943/Mum/2017. exempt income. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances and in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court mentioned above, we restore…

Logix Microsystems Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 186/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.453/Bang/2015 & It(Tp)A No.186/Bang/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…694 has taken the view that IT(TP)A No.453/B/2015 & IT(TP)A No.186/B/2016 Page 19 of 28 disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282 (Del). These decisions were considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd v. ACIT, ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.07.2017 relating to AY 2011-12 and it was held by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Following the aforesaid decisions, we hol…

Logix Microsystems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 453/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.453/Bang/2015 & It(Tp)A No.186/Bang/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…694 has taken the view that IT(TP)A No.453/B/2015 & IT(TP)A No.186/B/2016 Page 19 of 28 disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282 (Del). These decisions were considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd v. ACIT, ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.07.2017 relating to AY 2011-12 and it was held by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Following the aforesaid decisions, we hol…

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 2003/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah & Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he amount of exempt income, has been laid down by number of High Courts which are as follows: i) CIT v. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 325 ITR 97 (Guj.) ii) CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 111 DTR 158 (Del.) iii) CIT v. Shiva Motors Private Ltd. (2014) 111 DTR 153 (All.) 11. Taking note of the aforesaid dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal, we note that in the assessee`s case under consideration, the assessment year involved is A.Y.2008-09 hence, Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules read with section 14A of the Act are applicable to the assessee and the AO may compute the disallowanc…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1821/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah & Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he amount of exempt income, has been laid down by number of High Courts which are as follows: i) CIT v. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 325 ITR 97 (Guj.) ii) CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 111 DTR 158 (Del.) iii) CIT v. Shiva Motors Private Ltd. (2014) 111 DTR 153 (All.) 11. Taking note of the aforesaid dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal, we note that in the assessee`s case under consideration, the assessment year involved is A.Y.2008-09 hence, Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules read with section 14A of the Act are applicable to the assessee and the AO may compute the disallowanc…

M/S. Galgotia Publication (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 1239/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Sh. N.K.Billaiya, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1238 & 1239/Del/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years- 2012-13 & 2013-14 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Sh. P.K.Misra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.N.Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d before us is the disallowance to be restricted to the amount of dividend income earned. We find that the said issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.) and CIT vs Holcim (India) Pvt.Ltd. 272 CTR 282 (Del.). Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of Rules is restricted to Rs.830/-. Hence, grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Assessment Years- 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA No.1239/Del/2017 [Assessment Year- 2013-14…

M/S. Galgotia Publication (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 1238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Sh. N.K.Billaiya, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1238 & 1239/Del/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years- 2012-13 & 2013-14 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Sh. P.K.Misra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.N.Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d before us is the disallowance to be restricted to the amount of dividend income earned. We find that the said issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.) and CIT vs Holcim (India) Pvt.Ltd. 272 CTR 282 (Del.). Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of Rules is restricted to Rs.830/-. Hence, grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Assessment Years- 2012-13 & 2013-14 ITA No.1239/Del/2017 [Assessment Year- 2013-14…

M/S Assam Bengal Carriers, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata

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

ITA 618/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ead with Rule 8D should not exceed the exempt income received by the assessee. i) CIT vs. Cortech Energy Pvt. Ltd. reported in 325 ITR 97 (Guj) ii) CIT vs. Halsim India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 111 DTR 158 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Shiva Motors Pvt. Ltd. reported in 111 DTR 153 (All) Respectfully following the judgments of the various High Courts on the issue under consideration, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of the exempted income. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 22.11.2019 (S.S.GODARA) (A.L.SAINI) "…

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 1 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 748/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.748/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.M. Mahidar, JCIT
Section 41Section 41(1)Section 43B

…excluded as held in CIT v. Suzion Energy Limited [2013] 354 ITR 630 (Gui); 5.5.4 Investments in unlisted entities cannot be included if there is a possibility of the gains on transfer of the shares being taxable, as held in CIT v. Holcim India P.Ltd. [2014] 272 CTR 282(Delhi) (HC); 5.5.5 AO erred in adopting the incorrect average value of total assets of the Appellant by considering the amount of total assets net of current liabilities and provisions instead of the gross amount of total assets. 6. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Amrit Feeds Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2306/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Dr. Abani .K. Nayak, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA
Section 80Section 80I

…3) has held that no disallowance u/s 14A is permissible where the investments have not produced any tax free income during the relevant previous year. The same view has also been expressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Holeim India Pvt. Ltd. (272 CTR 282), Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cortech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (223 taxman 130) and Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivam Motors P Ltd. (230 Taxman 63). I further find that in some cases of this group the dividend was paid only by the associate companies. The investment in these shares was made for acquiring management control…

Buhler (India) Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 95/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2011-12 M/S. Buhler India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 13-D, 12-D, 13C & 13-B, Income-Tax, Kiadb Indl. Area, Attibele, Circle 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 562 107. Bangalore. Pan : Aaacb 5987 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of ACIT Vs. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.744/Bang/2018 dated 03.04.2019; which followed the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT (372 ITR 694) (Del) and CIT Vs. Holcim Indi Pvt. Ltd., in 272 CTR 282 (Del). 5.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5.3 We have heard and considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record and the judicial pronouncements cited in this regard. In the case on hand, admittedly the assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.5,46,848/- in the year u…