CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody

115 ITR 519Supreme Court of India1978#191 most cited

What is CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody authority for?

For deductions under Section 57(iii) relating to "Income from Other Sources," an expenditure is allowable if it is laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, even if no income is actually earned in that previous year.

386

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody · Rajendra Prasad Moody · 115 ITR 519 · Section 57(iii) · Income from Other Sources · deductibility of expenditure · expenses without income · wholly and exclusively · purpose of making income · Section 14A distinction · disallowance of expenses

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 57(iii)Section 1961Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 68Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 57(iii)section 57disallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 14acapital expendituresection 37(1)income from other sourcessection 37salaryprevious yearsection 10

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…sult in profit. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. ITA Nos.2082, 2150/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.1761,1327, 2159, 2160/Bang/2019 C.O. Nos.55 and 56/Bang/2019 Page 17 of 27 Rajendra Prasad Moody (115 ITR 519). It may be further stated that one of the objects of the assessee-co-onrative bank is to develop or assist and co-operative the member district central co-operative banks and other co-operative societies and therefore the contribution was only made in further pursuance of the objects of the bank for which it was established and therefore it cann…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Malana Power Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3713/del/2017 for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 3713/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Malana Power Co. Ltd, Bhilwara Bhawan, Circle-16(1)M 40-41, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcm1108R (Appellant) (Respondent) Malana Power Co. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Dcit, Bhilwara Bhawan, 40-41, Community Centre, New Range-6, Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcm1108R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 80I

…ering legal principles that allowability ITA 3713/Del/2017 AND ITA 2464/Del/2017 /disallowability of expenditure under the Act is not conditional upon the earning of the income as upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519? 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is legally justified in not upholding the disallowance u/s 14 A of the Act r.w. R 8D of the Rule of Rs. 2,46,47,780/- without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of CIT Vs Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [201…

Malana Power Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3713/del/2017 for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 2464/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Malana Power Co. Ltd, Bhilwara Bhawan, Circle-16(1)M 40-41, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcm1108R (Appellant) (Respondent) Malana Power Co. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Dcit, Bhilwara Bhawan, 40-41, Community Centre, New Range-6, Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcm1108R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 80I

…ering legal principles that allowability ITA 3713/Del/2017 AND ITA 2464/Del/2017 /disallowability of expenditure under the Act is not conditional upon the earning of the income as upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519? 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is legally justified in not upholding the disallowance u/s 14 A of the Act r.w. R 8D of the Rule of Rs. 2,46,47,780/- without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of CIT Vs Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [201…

ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 798/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 14A

…sion in Taikisha Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not specifically deal with this issue. 22. It was suggested by Mr. Hossain that, in the context of Section 57(iii), the Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax, West v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) explained that deduction is allowable even where income was not actually earned in the AY in question. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by this Court in M/s Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) where it reversed the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT by observing as under: “20. Since the Special Bench has relied upon the decision of the Su…

ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 797/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 14A

…sion in Taikisha Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not specifically deal with this issue. 22. It was suggested by Mr. Hossain that, in the context of Section 57(iii), the Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax, West v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) explained that deduction is allowable even where income was not actually earned in the AY in question. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by this Court in M/s Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) where it reversed the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT by observing as under: “20. Since the Special Bench has relied upon the decision of the Su…

ACIT, Circle- 7(2), Delhi vs. Ds Group Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5483/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Circle-7(2), Delhi Vs. M/S Ds Group Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Sco No. 310, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaecd7010Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2021 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Dated 1/6/2018 In Appeal Numbers 128/2017-18 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA
Section 115Section 14Section 14A

…sion in Taikisha Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not specifically deal with this issue. 22. It was suggested by Mr. Hossain that, in the context of Section 57(iii), the Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax, West v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) explained that deduction is allowable even where income was not actually earned in the AY in question. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by this Court in M/s Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) where it reversed the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT by observing as under: “20. Since the Special Bench has relied upon the decision of the Su…

DCIT, Circle-9(2), New Delhi vs. Fortis Health Management Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5477/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. N.L. Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 14Section 14A

…ion in Taikisha Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not specifically deal with this issue. 22. It was suggested by Mr. Hossain that, in the context of Section 57(iii), the Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax, West v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) explained that deduction is allowable even where income was not actually earned in the AY in question. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by this Court in M/s Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) where it reversed the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT by observing as under: “20. Since the Special Bench has relied upon the decision of the Su…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1267/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 36(1)

…fort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 192 Taxman 211/326 ITR 1 (SC), " CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra) stands followed in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC) " CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC). " Maxopp Investment Ltd. reported in [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154 held vide order dated 12.02.2018 Hon’ble Supreme Court " Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. Vs DCIT[2016] 76 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi) " Punjab Tractors Ltd Vs CIT[2017-TIOL-353-HC-P&H-IT] 6. As regards Ground No. 2, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addi…

Shri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JODH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Vs. I.T.O., D-43, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Ward-3, (Raj)-311001. Bhilwara. Pan No. Adqps 6311 K Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Vs. I.T.O., D-43, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Ward-3, (Raj)-311001. Bhilwara. PAN No. ADQPS 6311 K Assessee by Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue by Shri K.C. Badhok, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R PER: BENCH This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 11/04/2017 for the AY. 2013-14 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in s…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3920/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit Vs. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Circle – 15(1), 11/5B, First Floor, Pussa Road, C.R. Bldg., I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacr1437M (Applicant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 329/Del/2011 (In Ita No. 3920/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

…ion in Taikisha Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not specifically deal with this issue. 22. It was suggested by Mr. Hossain that, in the context of Section 57(iii), the Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax, West v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) explained that deduction is allowable even where income was not actually earned in the AY in question. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by this Court in M/s Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) where it reversed the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT by observing as under: “20. Since the Special Bench has relied upon the decision of the Su…

DCIT, Cirlce- 16(2), New Delhi vs. Meyer Apparel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4541/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 115Section 14Section 14A

…d. (supra) does not specifically deal with this issue. ITA No. 4541Del/2017 Meyer Apparel Ltd. 22. It was suggested by Mr. Hossain that, in the context of Section 57(iii), the Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax, West v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) explained that deduction is allowable even where income was not actually earned in the AY in question. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by this Court in M/s Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) where it reversed the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT by observing as under: “20. Since the Special Bench has relied upon the decision of the Su…

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Unipro Techno Infrastructure Private Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ound that disallowance cannot be made where there is no exempt income without appreciating the fact that applicability of section 14A or Rule 8D does not depend on earning of income as held by Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajender Prasad Moody (1978), 115 ITR 519. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in following the decisions of Hon'ble High Courts whose facts were distinguishable from the taxpayers, ignoring the principal of apportionment regardless of exempt income laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Walfort Share and stock Brokers P Ltd: 326 ITR 1 (SC) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court…

Subhash Chand Agarwal, Makrana vs. DCIT, Nagaur Circle, Nagaur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 78/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.78/Jodh/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal Dcit Nagaur Circle C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Nagaur, Rajasthan बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpa-4401-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Raksha Birla (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

…1 Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal Assessment Year: 2015-16 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ जोधपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH माननीय "ी संद"प गोसांई, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.78/Jodh/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal DCIT Nagaur Circle C/o Rajendra Jain Advocate Nagaur, Rajasthan बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex Vs. 5th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआ…

ITO, Ward-1(3), Jodhpur vs. M/S. Mangaldeep Darshan, Jodhpur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 423/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.78/Jodh/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal Dcit Nagaur Circle C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Nagaur, Rajasthan बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpa-4401-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Raksha Birla (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

…1 Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal Assessment Year: 2015-16 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ जोधपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH माननीय "ी संद"प गोसांई, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.78/Jodh/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal DCIT Nagaur Circle C/o Rajendra Jain Advocate Nagaur, Rajasthan बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex Vs. 5th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआ…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

…necessity of having revenue from the assessee's hotel business and existence of revenue from hotel business is not a pre condition to claim depreciation Under Section 32 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments. • CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [ 1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) • Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) • Smt. Satish Bala Malhotra v. CIT [2017] 391 ITR 256 (Punjab 8s Haryana) • CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) • CIT v. Darashaw & Co. (P.) Ltd [2014] 226 Taxman 193 (Bombay) (MAG.) • CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 13 (Bombay) • CIT v. M. Ethura…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…n. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee by invoking sec.115BBD of the Act. 29.3 Before Ld. DRP, the assessee placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mody (115 ITR 519) and contended that the expenditure is allowable, even if dividend income is not received during the year under consideration. However, the Ld. DRP took the view that the investment made by the assessee is not with the objective of earning dividend income but for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company. It held that the inter…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…n. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee by invoking sec.115BBD of the Act. 29.3 Before Ld. DRP, the assessee placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mody (115 ITR 519) and contended that the expenditure is allowable, even if dividend income is not received during the year under consideration. However, the Ld. DRP took the view that the investment made by the assessee is not with the objective of earning dividend income but for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company. It held that the inter…

M/S. Windsor Gardens Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2599/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri George George Km/S.Windsor Gardens Pvt. Ltd., No.81, 36Th Cross, 6Th Main, 5Th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 041 ….Appellant. Pan Aaacw 3001E Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt.Suman Lunkar, C.A. Revenue By: Dr. A. Shankar Prasad K, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. A. Shankar Prasad K, Addl. CIT
Section 14A

…f M/s MGM Diamond Beach Resorts P. Ltd V DCIT (Chennai ITAT B Bench, decision rendered on 13/06/2008 in ITA No. 2173/Mds/2005- A.Y 2002-03). In that case, the AO referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V Rajendra Prasad Mody (115 ITR 519) held that even if no dividend income is earned, the provision would still be applicable. 4.2 In that case cited supra, the Chennai ITAT has held as follows: "Now the question is whether if no income is earned during the year which ultimately would be exempt income, even then this provision is applicable or not. We feel that the Assessing Officer…

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

…ccordingly the interest paid on the above loans was deductible against the receipt of interest of the said FDR with IOB as per provisions . of section 57 of the Income tax Act. Kindly see the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Moody (115 ITR 519). 12 I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 Ravi Mohan Gehi 7.2. During the appeal proceedings the appellant submitted as under No expenditure incurred to earn an exempt income i. The Ld. A.O. disallowed an amount of Rs. 6,80,760/- by falsely resorting to Clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) which provides for disallowance of 0.5% of average investment for indirect ex…

M/S. Ranbaxy Holdings Co., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 495/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ranbaxy Holding Company Vs Dcit 55, Hanuman Road Circle-15(1) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Dcit Vs Ranbaxy Holding Company Circle-15(1) 55, Hanuman Road New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi Aakcs7686P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43A

…n an income, i.e. positive income, which is in any case a matter subsequent, and that the mere fact that expenditure stands incurred for the purpose is sufficient for its admissibility, as explained by the Apex Court in CIT(A) Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (S.C) The Apex Court was in that case examining the true interpretation of Section 57(iii) which employed the words any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure)/laid out or expended for the purpose of making or earning such income. 8. As regards revenue’s appeal is concerned Ground No. 1 is in relation with disallowance u/s 1…