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 366,470 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ranjan Dagar, New Delhi

ITA 4602/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Senior DR
Section 24Section 57(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3346/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITO, Ward 47 (2), vs. Shri Ranjan Dagar, New Delhi. BK – 16, Shalimar Bagh West, Delhi – 110 088. (PAN : ADKPD7090A) ITA No.4602/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ACIT, Circle 47 (1), vs. Shri Ranjan Dagar, New Delhi. BK – 16, Shalimar Bagh West, Delhi – 110 088. (PAN : ADKPD7090A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date of Order : 22.09.…

Bgr Investment Holdings Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes; the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed; and the assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 476/CHNY/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2017AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Ms. Vijayaprabha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 31.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…ly because the object or the purpose for which it is incurred does not fructify. The success of the expenditure does not determine its admissibility, or result in a change in its character, as explained by the Apex Court in CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC). In Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), a decision by a larger bench of the Apex Court, the amount paid on cancellation of a contract for purchase of machinery, claimed as a business loss, was held as only capital expenditure. The decision stands followed and applied in a number of decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts, including the Hon'…

Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 290/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.290/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.07.2017
Section 143(3)

…ciated, are incurred only for the purpose of business, with a view to generate revenue. How successful it would actually be is a matter subsequent, and which in fact is not relevant. As explained by the Apex Court time and again, as in CIT v. R.P.Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC), the future benefit/s that an expenditure may yield is uncertain, but that by itself is no ground for the same to be not regarded as revenue in nature, incurred for the purpose of generating revenue. An expenditure being unfructuous would not change its character, and would thus equally qua qualify for being allowed or, as the case may be, n…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…nt, and the dividend is received in respect of such shares, the interest paid on borrowed funds has been held to be allowable as deduction against dividend income. The Supreme Court has gone a step further in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519, wherein it has been held that deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds is allowable as deduction in computing the income under the head 26 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 ‘Income from other sources’, even where the dividend is not received in a particular year. If this is the legal position, then we are afraid, how the in…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…nt, and the dividend is received in respect of such shares, the interest paid on borrowed funds has been held to be allowable as deduction against dividend income. The Supreme Court has gone a step further in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519, wherein it has been held that deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds is allowable as deduction in computing the income under the head 26 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 ‘Income from other sources’, even where the dividend is not received in a particular year. If this is the legal position, then we are afraid, how the in…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…nt, and the dividend is received in respect of such shares, the interest paid on borrowed funds has been held to be allowable as deduction against dividend income. The Supreme Court has gone a step further in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519, wherein it has been held that deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds is allowable as deduction in computing the income under the head 26 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 ‘Income from other sources’, even where the dividend is not received in a particular year. If this is the legal position, then we are afraid, how the in…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-04 vs. M/S Il & Fs Energy Development Company Ltd

ITA/520/2017HC Delhi16 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 115JSection 14ASection 260

…kisha 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…

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 450/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 24Section 36(1)(iii)Section 48Section 92C

…ment, and the dividend is received in respect of such shares, the interest paid on borrowed funds has been held to be allowable as deduction against dividend income. The Supreme Court has gone a step further in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519, wherein it has been held that deduction on account of - - 5 ITA 450/17 interest paid on borrowed funds is allowable as deduction in computing the income under the head ‘Income from other sources’, even where the dividend is not received in a particular year. If this is the legal position, then we are afraid, how the interest paid by the asses…

Shriram Ownership Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 407/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ting the dividend among its ITA Nos.406 & 407/Mds/2017 :- 35 -: beneficiaries. Therefore, according to him, Sec. 14A of the Act should be applied strictly. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 32. orders of the authorities below. Contention of the assessee is that dividend on which exemption was claimed by it, was only on few investments, whereas majority of its investments did not yield any income at all. Details of investments held by the assessee, as at the end of the releva…

Shriram Ownership Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 406/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ting the dividend among its ITA Nos.406 & 407/Mds/2017 :- 35 -: beneficiaries. Therefore, according to him, Sec. 14A of the Act should be applied strictly. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 32. orders of the authorities below. Contention of the assessee is that dividend on which exemption was claimed by it, was only on few investments, whereas majority of its investments did not yield any income at all. Details of investments held by the assessee, as at the end of the releva…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4852/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…rinciples of consistency and reasonable expectation on the same set of facts in law on the subject a different view cannot be taken. The AO could not take the different view in subsequent year and the Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519 (SC). He also relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Navsara Sagar 185 ITR 564 and the Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision relied by the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005- 06 in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172, Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. 118 ITR 261 (SC), Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. 272 ITR 193, Express Newspap…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith Desai, Mumbai

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

ITA 2562/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…rinciples of consistency and reasonable expectation on the same set of facts in law on the subject a different view cannot be taken. The AO could not take the different view in subsequent year and the Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519 (SC). He also relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Navsara Sagar 185 ITR 564 and the Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision relied by the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005- 06 in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172, Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. 118 ITR 261 (SC), Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. 272 ITR 193, Express Newspap…

Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2439/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…rinciples of consistency and reasonable expectation on the same set of facts in law on the subject a different view cannot be taken. The AO could not take the different view in subsequent year and the Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519 (SC). He also relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Navsara Sagar 185 ITR 564 and the Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision relied by the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005- 06 in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172, Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. 118 ITR 261 (SC), Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. 272 ITR 193, Express Newspap…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

ITA 1929/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: R P Meena
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…CIT v.Holcim India (P.) Ltd.(I.T.A.No.486 of 2014 decided on 5- 9-2014) (para 15) vi. CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (para 15) vii. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2015] 4 ITR-OL 246 (P&H) (para 15) viii. CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix.CIT v.Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) 5 1929/M/12-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (+7Appls) xii. Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. ITA [2005] 278 ITR…

Kavita Marketing P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Asst

ITA 6022/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia (Jm) & Shri Ramit Kochar (Am) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(3)

…ies during the course of hearing and also perused the material available on record. We find that the Tribunal has decided this issue by considering the various judgments including the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Modi, 115 ITR 519 whereby the Tribunal has verified and worked out the capital expenditure of the assessee and calculated interest bearing funds and non-interest bearing fund. We, respectfully following the same, are of the view that the assessee is entitled for part relief. For reference, we reproduce hereunder the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in ITA…

Priya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD), Cir 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3231/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Priya Ltd. Dcit(Osd), Circle-2(3), 209-210, Kimatraj Building बनाम/ R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, 02 Floor, 77/79 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd), Priya Ltd. 209-210, Kimatraj Building Circle-2(3), बनाम/ 02 Floor, 77/79 R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…icability of Section 14A of the Act in an year when no exempt income had been earned. The Special Bench by an order dated 5th August 2009 answered the question by inter alia referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC). The reasoning of the Special Bench was as under: “22. The controversy raised in this case is that the assessee had not earned or received any dividend in the year under consideration and, therefore, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. We do not find any force in this contention of the assessee.…

DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Nrc Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4125/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd)-2(3), Nrc Ltd. R. No.577, State Bank Of India, Central बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Office, Accounts & Vs. M.K. Road, Compliance Dept. 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400020 Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacn1616J

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3(1)(o)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT(OSD)-2(3), NRC Ltd. R. No.577, State Bank of India, Central बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Office, Accounts & Vs. M.K. Road, Compliance Dept. 14th Floor, Mumbai-400020 Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAACN1616J राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Suman Kumar-DR "नधा"रती क"…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 368/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.368/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.28, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 1(2), Ambattur, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacb 2753 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 14A

…found that when the assessee has not earned any taxable income in the relevant assessment year in question, the corresponding expenditure could not be worked out for disallowance. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519, the Delhi High Court 5 I.T.A. No.368/Mds/16 found that the judgment of Apex Court cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even if no income has been received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. The Delhi High Court had no occasion to consider the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.…

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bhor Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the A

ITA 4480/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Surabhi SharmaFor Respondent: Shri. S.C.Tiwari &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 44A

…orks Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 561(Bom), Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 0001 (SC), CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 0140(SC), CIT Vs. Salitho Ores Ltd. (2012) 344 ITR 0161 (HC Bom at Goa) & CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Mody (1978) 115 ITR 519(SC) submitted that as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High courts in the cases above referred, any expenditure which is incurred for keeping the business alive is considered as wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. The assessee has to meet establishment charges and other expenses duri…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ranka N Ranka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals of the revenue are partly

ITA 71/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan, JCIT
Section 14A

…t income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. We also find that in this judgment, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also had considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Rajendra Prasad Moody reported in 115 ITR 519(SC). Respectfully following this judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court cited supra, we hold that section 14A is not applicable in the facts of the present case. But we also feel that when the investment in shares is not for stock in trade, if any borrowed fund is used for such investment then deduction on account of interest on such borrow…