CIT v. Magan Lal Chhaganlal

236 ITR 456High Court1999#7784 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 80msection 18withholding taxinterest on securitiessection 41section 260section 260amercantile system of accountingmiscellaneous applicationchilddisallowance under section 14asection 145

Judgments citing CIT v. Magan Lal Chhaganlal

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4105/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…t in case of CIT versus United Gen trust private limited [(200 ITR 488)], Distributors(Baroda) private limited versus Union of India [155 ITR 120] and the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Magan Lal Chhaganlal private limited (236 ITR 456). 26) Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer challenged the same before the learned CIT – A who decided the above ground of appeal as per Page | 16 paragraph number 5 of his appellate order. It was submitted before the learned CIT appeal that the learned assessing officer has failed to establish nexus between the exemp…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…t in case of CIT versus United Gen trust private limited [(200 ITR 488)], Distributors(Baroda) private limited versus Union of India [155 ITR 120] and the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Magan Lal Chhaganlal private limited (236 ITR 456). 26) Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer challenged the same before the learned CIT – A who decided the above ground of appeal as per ` paragraph number 5 of his appellate order. It was submitted before the learned CIT appeal that the learned assessing officer has failed to establish nexus between the exempt incom…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…case of CIT versus United Gen trust private limited [(200 ITR 488)], Distributors(Baroda) private limited versus Union of India [155 ITR 120] and the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Magan Lal Chhaganlal private limited (236 ITR 456). 26) Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer challenged the same before the learned CIT – A who decided the above ground of appeal as per Page | 16 paragraph number 5 of his appellate order. It was submitted before the learned CIT appeal that the learned assessing officer has failed to establish nexus between th…

SHRIRAM CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM FINANCIAL VENTURES(CHENNAI) PRIVATE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRLCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 813/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 813/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shriram Capital Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Shriram V. Income Tax, Financial Ventures (Chennai) Corporate Circle 3(1), Private Limited) Chennai. Shriram House No. 4, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aapcs-5667-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80M

…3/Chny/2023 only expenditure of Rs.17,925/- & Rs.63,412 respectively was incurred to earn exempt income. 8. The CIT(A) erred in relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Distributiors ( Baroda) Pvt Ltd 155 ITR 120 SC and Maganlal chhaganlal Pvt Ltd 236 ITR 456 Bombay HC wherein the issue involved was deduction u/s.80M whereas in the appellant's case the issue involved is deduction u/s.14A r.w Rule 8D. 9. The CIT(A) erred in relying the ITAT Hyderabad's decision in the case of Chintalapatti Holdings Pvt Ltd 146 Taxmann.com 305 and stating that in that case it has been held "that discussion in the assess…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 539/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice-& Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Dcit, Circle-8, Vs M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., Pune. 26/27, Mumbai Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaacf 2637 D Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shrij.G. Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shrim.M. Chate, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 Order Perpartha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Dated 19.05.2022For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap Without Appreciating The Fact That Assesses Itself Categorized Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Statement Of Roorkee Unit Undertaking & The Same Is Not Derived From The Activities Of The Eligible Business. 1(B) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Liberty India Vs. Cit (2009) 317 Itr 218 (Sc) Wherein The Words "Derived From' Is Explained? 1(C) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Sale Of Scrap, Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of M/S Fenner India Ltd. (241 Itr 803) Without Appreciating The Facts That The Same Has Been M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd.

For Appellant: ShriJ.G. Pendse, ARFor Respondent: ShriM.M. Chate, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92(2)Section 92B

…had to be deducted while allowing deduction under section 80M" Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. 155 ITR 120 and Bombay High Court in the case of Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 456, which has expressed a similar view, that expenditure may be attributable to earning of dividend income. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case of M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. 12 SOT 248, the relevant portion contained in Para 13 and 14 are reproduced as under: "It is difficult to accept the hy…

RAVI MOHAN GEHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cen Cir 40, Ravi Mohan Gehi, Piramal Chambers B/6, Navkar Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Pin- Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aeppg1674M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Pradip Kanasi, Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Michael, Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 29.07.2020 : Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2020 :

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kanasi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Michael, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 57

…pon following case laws which were not applicable to your appellant. 13 I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 Ravi Mohan Gehi a) MIs Gherzi Eastern Limited (ITA no 6562/BOM/94) b) Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd (SC) (155 ITR 120) c) Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd (Born.) (236 ITR 456) d) M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd (Mum- Trib.) (12 SOT 248) e) Daga Capital Management Ltd (Mum- Trib.) (117 IT!) 169) It is to be noted that all the cases referred by the A.O. were in relation to Limited companies where in all the decisions are taken unanimously by the Board of Directors which requires incurring of expenses. However your appe…

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2965/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2002-03 Tata Chemicals Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Bombay House, Vs. Income Tax-2(3)(1), 5Th 24 Homi Mody Street, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai-400001 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner Tata Chemicals Ltd. Of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Vs. Bombay House, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 24 Homi Mody Street, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…coming funds from loans and advances, capital and retained earnings in the nature of reserves. Then referring to the decision in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (159 CTR 132), Tata Unisys Ltd. (47 TTJ 8). CIT v. Magan Lal Chhagan Lal Pvt. Ltd. (236 ITR 456), CIT v. United General Trust Pvt. Ltd. (200 ITR 488) and K Somasundaram & Brothers v. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad), the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.14.49 crores u/s 14A as interest expense towards investment in shares and securities, income from which is exempt from tax. 2.2 In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to verify whether own funds were u…

DCIT CENT. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. RARE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5208/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. S. PadmajaFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari
Section 14Section 14ASection 2

…ed on the facts of the case. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following judgements/decisions : (i) Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. [155 ITR 120 (SC) (ii) Godrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (234 CTR 1 (Bom) (iii) Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd. [236 ITR 456 (Bom) (iv) M/s. Gherzi Eastern Limited (ITA No. 6562/Bom/94) dated 23rd September, 2002) (ITAT, Mumbai) In the case of Godrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8D. It is observed by the Hon'ble Court that once the satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer for makin…

DCIT CENT. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. RARE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5207/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. S. PadmajaFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari
Section 14Section 14ASection 2

…ed on the facts of the case. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following judgements/decisions : (i) Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. [155 ITR 120 (SC) (ii) Godrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (234 CTR 1 (Bom) (iii) Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd. [236 ITR 456 (Bom) (iv) M/s. Gherzi Eastern Limited (ITA No. 6562/Bom/94) dated 23rd September, 2002) (ITAT, Mumbai) In the case of Godrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8D. It is observed by the Hon'ble Court that once the satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer for makin…

DCIT,CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DALMIA SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ( in ITA no

ITA 2078/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1937/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Sarat Bose Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd1813G (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2078/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Vs. Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – Sarat Bose Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd 1813 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By :Shri Sallongyaden, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata In Appeal No.499/Cit(A)-18/11-12/Cir- 12(1)/Kol, Dated 08.08.2016, Which Is Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961,(Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 21.02.2014. 2. These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Identical

For Appellant: Shri Asim Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SallongYaden, ACIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ributors [Baroda] Pvt. Ltd. -vs- UOI 155 ITR 120, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that some administrative expenses are definitely involved in earning dividend. This judgement was followed by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-vs-MaganlalChaganlal Pvt. Ltd., 236 ITR 456. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that under the circumstances assessee's submission that no cost was involved in making investment in shares, is not acceptable. The ld CIT(A) noted that, so far the quantum of disallowance is concerned, theassessee's contentions regarding considering of net interest expenses and only investment earning dividend, ar…

DALMIA SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ( in ITA no

ITA 1937/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1937/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Sarat Bose Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd1813G (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2078/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Vs. Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – Sarat Bose Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd 1813 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By :Shri Sallongyaden, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata In Appeal No.499/Cit(A)-18/11-12/Cir- 12(1)/Kol, Dated 08.08.2016, Which Is Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961,(Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 21.02.2014. 2. These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Identical

For Appellant: Shri Asim Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SallongYaden, ACIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ributors [Baroda] Pvt. Ltd. -vs- UOI 155 ITR 120, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that some administrative expenses are definitely involved in earning dividend. This judgement was followed by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-vs-MaganlalChaganlal Pvt. Ltd., 236 ITR 456. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that under the circumstances assessee's submission that no cost was involved in making investment in shares, is not acceptable. The ld CIT(A) noted that, so far the quantum of disallowance is concerned, theassessee's contentions regarding considering of net interest expenses and only investment earning dividend, ar…

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. AARTI INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is also partly allowed

ITA 2421/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () I.T.A. No.2421/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 4

…mpt income cannot be ruled out. These are valid inferences based on the facts of the case. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions/ judgments. 1. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (155 ITR 120) (SC) 11. Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd. (236 ITR 456) (Born) 11.3 The submission of the assessee company that no effort was required for maintaining the investment is not born out of the records. The investments made by the assessee have gone up during the year. The assessee had debited huge expenditure in the Profit & Loss account like interest expenditure, administrative expenditure etc. Moreove…

RANIGANJ CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,,RANIGANJ vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, ITA No.1983/Kol/2014 is partly allowed while ITA

ITA 1983/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & Jcit Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (Pan:Aaffr 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri U.Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 6

…erzi Eastern Limited (ITA No. 6562/Bom/94 dated 23/09/2002). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon;ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (155 ITR 120) and Bombay High Court in the case of Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd. (236 ITR 456), which has expressed a similar view, that expenditure may be attributable to earning of dividend income.” 6. The CIT(A) however confirmed the order of the AO by observing that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act can be made even if there is no exempt income and that if investments are made which can give raise to exempt income in future then expend…

SAURASHTRA FUELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 7273/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra(D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80M

…M of the Act. The reliance was also placed by the AO on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors(Baroda) Private Limited v. UOI ((1985) 155 ITR 120(SC)) and Bombay High Court in the case of Magganlal Chagganlal Private Limited ((1999) 236 ITR 456 (Bom.)) whereby it has been held that expenditure may be attributable to dividend income. The AO also relied upon the decision of Special Bench , ITAT , Mumbai in the case of Daga Capital Management Private Limited (2008) 312 ITR (AT)1(Mum) to hold that the provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 are retrospective in nature. The AO worked…

CIT v. Magan Lal Chhaganlal (236 ITR 456) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax