How many judgments cite CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.?

175 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. (383 ITR 490), spanning 2016 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 35(2AB), Section 115JB, Section 144C(3), Section 37(1).

CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. (383 ITR 490)

Q: What is CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. authority for?

If an assessee possesses interest-free funds exceeding investments in tax-free securities, it is presumed that investments are made from these own funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is computed on the gross expenditure incurred, not net expenditure after reducing income earned.

DCIT vs. M/S Jupiter Capial Pvt. Ltd

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1595/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ent order whereas the learned AR for the Assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). Regarding the ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal, he also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Microlabs Ltd., 383 ITR 490. The learned DR for the Revenue filed the written submissions also, which are as under:- “During the course of scrutiny proceedings, it is observed that the assessee had substantial amount of investment in the share capital of its subsidiary companies and other sister concern which attracts disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r 8D. However, the assessee ha…

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2944/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice-, &, Saktijit Deyassessment Year 2012-13 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ltu, Glenmark House, Hdo Corporate Mumbai Bldg., Wing A, B D Sawant Marg, Chakala, Opp Western Express Vs Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 099. Pan Aaacg2207L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M Dayasagar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…(2AB) of the Act. To support its contention, assessee relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Wockhardt Ltd. in ITA No.71/um/2007 and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Microlabs Limited [2016] 383 ITR 490. Further, it was submitted by assessee that it had already offered income in respect of contract Research & Development receipts. After considering the submissions of the assessee, learned CIT observed that against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Wockhardt Ltd (supra), the department has filed reference before the Hon’ble…

M/S Suprajit Engineering Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2143/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Suprajit Engineering Ltd., No.100, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560099. … Appellant Pan:Aadcs 1638L Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri M.Rajasekhar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajasekhar, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 10(34)Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234

…view that the ld. AR could substantiate with evidence that non-interest-bearing funds have been utilized for the purpose of investments and need to be verified and we rely on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Microlabs (383 ITR 490) where it is held: Page 7 of 8 “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income - (Interest) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Where availability of profit, share capital and reserves and surplus was much more than investments made by assessee which could yield tax-free income, no disa…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Igate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…the assessee’s Shareholders’ fund stands at Rs.509.29 crore. Thus, it is evident that the Shareholders’ fund is far in excess of the amount of 32 and IT(TP) A.No.10/Bang/2014 investments. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anr vs. Microlabs (2016) 383 ITR 490 (Kar) has held that when investments are made from a common pool and non-interest bearing funds are more than the investment in tax free securities, no disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A can be made. This view has been taken by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 515 (Bom)…

M/S Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2912/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekarnataka State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. No.49, Ii Floor, West Avenue, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course, Bengaluru-560001. … Appellant Pan:Aacck3563F Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), … Respondent Bengaluru. & (By Revenue) Assessee By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr). Revenue By : Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, Ca. Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/08/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bengaluru, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Since The Take Up The Revenue Appeal In Ita No.2715/Bang/2017 & The Facts Narrated Therein.

For Appellant: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…e of the substantive opinion that when the Reserves & Surplus of the as. Company are more than investments, the disallowance u. 14 read with 8 D (2) (ii) shall not be attracted as per the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Micro Labs 383 ITR 490 (Kar) and while calculating disallowance under Section 14 r.w. 8D(2)(ii). In calculating the average investments only those investments which yield exempt income has to be considered as per Special Bench decision of ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments P. Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (Del). Accordingly, we consider it proper to restore this issue t…

M/S. Toshniwal Brothers (Sr) Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1768/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Toshniwal Brothers (Sr) Private Limited, The Deputy No. 11, Aecs Layout, 3Rd Cross, Commissioner Of 4Th Main, Gedalahalli, Vs. Income Tax, Sanjay Nagar, 1St Stage, Circle 12 (4), Bangalore – 560 094. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact2881R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 14ASection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. Toshniwal Brothers (SR) Private Limited, The Deputy No. 11, AECS Layout, 3rd Cross, Commissioner of 4th Main, Gedalahalli, Vs. Income Tax, Sanjay Nagar, 1st Stage, Circle 12 (4), Bangalore – 560 094. Bangalore. PAN: AAACT2881R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri L. Bharath, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 08.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, A…

Adama India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2314/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcm 09294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghunathan S. Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…hasis supplied) 34 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. • CIT vs. Tin Box Company [2003] 260 ITR 637 (Delhi High Court) Applying the above proposition in the context of section 14A, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. vs. Microlabs (2016) 383 ITR 490 (Karnataka High Court) has upheld the view of the Tribunal that when investments are made from common pool and non-interest bearing funds are more than the investment in tax free securities, no disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A can be made. Similar view has been upheld in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014J 366 ITR 505 (Bombay Hi…

Shri Sameer Suneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 190/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Senior DR

Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…. I.T.A No. 1323/Mum/2012; CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 (Bom); ITO Vs. Atul Anand AY 2009-10 ITA No 446/De1/2013 Dt 19.02.2014 (Delhi Tribunal); CIT VS. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 652 (P&H); CIT Vs. Micro Labs Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 490 (Kar); HDFC Bank Ltd Vs. DCIT & Others (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom); CIT VS. Modi Rubber Ltd (2015) 378 ITR 128 (Delhi); CIT Vs. SRF Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 425 (Delhi); Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems GmbH Vs. DDIT (Int'l Taxation) 2(1)(Mum) [2016] 158 ITD 480 (Mumbai-Trib.); Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 117 and CIT Vs.…

M/S Manipal Intergrated Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kabila H, JCIT (DR)

Section 14A

…8,20,01,121/-. Hence, this is admitted position that no interest is paid on Compulsory Convertible Debentures. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Microlabs Ltd. as reported in [2016] 383 ITR 490 (Kar) and submitted that this was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in this case that when investments are made out of a common pool of funds and non-interest bearing funds were more than the investments in tax-free securities, no disallowance of interest expenditure u/s. 14A of the IT Act, 1961 can be made. He also pointed out that the invest…

M/S Manipal Interated Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 979/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kabila H, JCIT (DR)

Section 14A

…8,20,01,121/-. Hence, this is admitted position that no interest is paid on Compulsory Convertible Debentures. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Microlabs Ltd. as reported in [2016] 383 ITR 490 (Kar) and submitted that this was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in this case that when investments are made out of a common pool of funds and non-interest bearing funds were more than the investments in tax-free securities, no disallowance of interest expenditure u/s. 14A of the IT Act, 1961 can be made. He also pointed out that the invest…