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.

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 914/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

…not apply, but at the same time, we find that there is no exempt income claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd 378 ITR 33 and CIT Vs. Holcim 272 CTR 282 squarely apply wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that where there is no exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Respectfully following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 12,68,781/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 12 with all its sub grounds is allowed.” 13.3 Before us also, the…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 912/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

…not apply, but at the same time, we find that there is no exempt income claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd 378 ITR 33 and CIT Vs. Holcim 272 CTR 282 squarely apply wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that where there is no exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Respectfully following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 12,68,781/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 12 with all its sub grounds is allowed.” 13.3 Before us also, the…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 911/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

…not apply, but at the same time, we find that there is no exempt income claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd 378 ITR 33 and CIT Vs. Holcim 272 CTR 282 squarely apply wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that where there is no exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Respectfully following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 12,68,781/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 12 with all its sub grounds is allowed.” 13.3 Before us also, the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Skytop Buildes Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2114/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…rt in the case of 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. In this regard, the Hon'ble Karnataka Hig…

Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 266/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 32(1)

…nce of interest can be made in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lakhani Marketing Industries (2014) 272 CTR 265 (P&H), Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Del) , Hon’ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 277 (All) and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 97 (Guj). Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in these judicial pronouncements, no disallowanc…

M/S Coffeeday Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2820/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 M/s Coffeeday Enterprises Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, Circle-2(1)(1), Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001. PAN – AADCC 3995 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri C Ramesh, C.A Respondent by : Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 10.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : .06.2019 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the or…

M/S Sivan Securities Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore

ITA 715/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 37

…n it was held that the disallowance u/s. 14A of IT Act cannot exceed the exempt income. He further pointed out that the Tribunal has considered one more judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) in addition to the Tribunal order of Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.07.2017. It was pointed out that in all these judgments, it was held that disallowance u/s. 14A of IT Act cannot exceed the exempt income. He pointed out that in Assessment Year 2009-10, the am…

M/S Sivan Securities Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore

ITA 714/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 37

…n it was held that the disallowance u/s. 14A of IT Act cannot exceed the exempt income. He further pointed out that the Tribunal has considered one more judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) in addition to the Tribunal order of Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.07.2017. It was pointed out that in all these judgments, it was held that disallowance u/s. 14A of IT Act cannot exceed the exempt income. He pointed out that in Assessment Year 2009-10, the am…

M/S Sivan Securities Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore

ITA 713/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 37

…n it was held that the disallowance u/s. 14A of IT Act cannot exceed the exempt income. He further pointed out that the Tribunal has considered one more judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) in addition to the Tribunal order of Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.07.2017. It was pointed out that in all these judgments, it was held that disallowance u/s. 14A of IT Act cannot exceed the exempt income. He pointed out that in Assessment Year 2009-10, the am…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Incredible Capital Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3935/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Incredible Capital Ltd., Income Tax, 8/19, Ground Floor, Smile Circle-12(1), New Delhi Chamber, Wea, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan :Aabci4307C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca

Section 14A

…ance at Rs. 4,56,23,938/- being the expenditure on interest incurred and claimed by the appellant company. The appellant stated that it had no dividend income and therefore as per judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Holcim India (P) Ltd. 272 CTR 282 no disallowance should be made. Further no expenditure was incurred and also the AO did not record any satisfaction before proceeding to make the disallowance. The decision of Hon'ble Delhi high Court in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd. is in favour of the appellant. Further the decision relied upon by the AO stand reversed by the judgm…

Britannia Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2235/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2235/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Priyanka Salarpuria, FCAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…rdance with that under Rule 8D, and the assessee has not taken into account many indirect cost while calculating the disallowance. The ld DRP further noticed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court of Cheminvest Ltd. & CIT vs. Holcim India P Ltd. 272 CTR 282 (Del), the A.O. was right in computing the disallowance u/s 14A as per Rule 8D. 9. Coming to the computation aspect of assessee`s administrative expenses, we note that disallowance of administrative expenses is governed by Rule 8D (2) (iii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144 IT…

Asst CIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar House Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6980/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 14A

…23.12.2016 iv) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [281 CTR 447 (Del)] v) CIT v. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. [272 CTR 277 (All)] vi) CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. [272 CTR 262 (Guj)] vii) CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [272 CTR 265 (P&H)] viii) CIT v. Holcim India (P) Ltd. (272 CTR 282 (Del)] ix) CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. (319 ITR 204 P&H)” The Ld. A.R. prayed before the Bench that in view of the ratio laid down in the various decisions as stated above the ground raised by the Revenue may be dismissed by upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 8. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material o…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 744/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’ BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.744/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Room No. 230, 2nd Floor, BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road, 6th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. …. Appellant. Vs. M/s. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd., Mantri House, 41, VittalMallya Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. ….. Respondent. PAN : AAFCM 1653 D C.O. No.54/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/s. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru – 560…

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1976/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O Prakash K. Prakash, Central Circle-13, B-1, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi. 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm6572A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Ms Suman Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19Th January, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To The Part Relief Granted By The Cit(A) On The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of It Rules, 1962. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 14A

…nly Rs.2,19,536/- The coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (Del) and in the case of CIT vs. Holcim (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) are consistently taking the view that the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the actual dividend income received by the assessee which is claimed as exempt. Since the 3 assessee in the instant case has received only an amount of Rs.2,19,536/- which has been claimed as exempt, therefore, we are of the considered opinion th…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 910/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Gosain[A.Y 2007-08] M/S Pernod Ricard [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, [Formerly Known As Central Circle -31 Seagram India Pvt Ltd New Delhi 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi Pan: Aaacs 4781 P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Smt. Rashi Khanna, Adv. Shri Yojit Pareek, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT-DR
Section 153A

…not apply, but at the same time, we find that there is no exempt income claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd 378 ITR 33 and CIT Vs. Holcim 272 CTR 282 squarely apply wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that where there is no exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Respectfully following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 12,68,781/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 12 with all its sub grounds is allowed. 48. Ground No.13 to 13.3…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Limited., Kolkata

ITA 192/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…finds strength from the following:  The Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Delite Enterprises  The ITAT(Kol) in case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT [144 ITD 141] (Affirmed by Calcutta High Court)  The Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. [272 CTR 282]  The Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CITVs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [272 CTR 265]  ITAT(Bangalore) in case of Alliance Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs, DCIT (order enclosed)  ITAT(Chennai) in case of ACIT Vs. M.Baskaran [152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the y…

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Limited., Kolkata

ITA 191/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…finds strength from the following:  The Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Delite Enterprises  The ITAT(Kol) in case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT [144 ITD 141] (Affirmed by Calcutta High Court)  The Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. [272 CTR 282]  The Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CITVs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [272 CTR 265]  ITAT(Bangalore) in case of Alliance Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs, DCIT (order enclosed)  ITAT(Chennai) in case of ACIT Vs. M.Baskaran [152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the y…

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cental Circle - 4(4), Kolkata

ITA 139/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…finds strength from the following:  The Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Delite Enterprises  The ITAT(Kol) in case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT [144 ITD 141] (Affirmed by Calcutta High Court)  The Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. [272 CTR 282]  The Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CITVs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [272 CTR 265]  ITAT(Bangalore) in case of Alliance Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs, DCIT (order enclosed)  ITAT(Chennai) in case of ACIT Vs. M.Baskaran [152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the y…

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cental Circle - 4(4), Kolkata

ITA 138/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…finds strength from the following:  The Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Delite Enterprises  The ITAT(Kol) in case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT [144 ITD 141] (Affirmed by Calcutta High Court)  The Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. [272 CTR 282]  The Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CITVs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [272 CTR 265]  ITAT(Bangalore) in case of Alliance Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs, DCIT (order enclosed)  ITAT(Chennai) in case of ACIT Vs. M.Baskaran [152 ITD 844] 2.4.2 Applying the above to the facts of the case, it is pointed out that the assessee during the y…

M/S Lamina Suspensions Products Limited, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Taaaax Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are partly allowed

ITA 337/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2018 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Lamina Suspensions Products Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of #13-12-1394, 8Th Floor, Rambhavan Income Tax, Complex, Kokial Bail, Range -2, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru. Pan : Aaacl 3061 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nagendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Nagendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…rt in the case of 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…