CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.

127 Taxmann.com 354High Court2021#10883 most cited

What is CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer must record their dissatisfaction with an assessee's disallowance before making a further disallowance under Section 14A.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. · section 14A · disallowance under section 14A · non application of mind · Assessing Officer satisfaction · Rule 8D · Tribunal deletion · Bombay High Court

Also reported as

316 ITR 399

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 234DSection 35DSection 40A(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 14(2)section 35dsection 14a(2)non application of mindsection 40a(2)disallowance u/s 14asection 115jbdisallowance under section 14asection 14asection 153aassistant commissionersection 143(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Manipal Health Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1208/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Manipal Health Enterprises Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, of Income Tax, The Annexe, # 98/2, Circle 2(3)(1), Rustam Bagh, HAL Airport Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 017. PAN: AAGCM 5933R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Manipal Health Enterprises of Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore – 560 017. Bangalore. PAN: AAGCM 5933R APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assess…

Manipal Health Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1092/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Manipal Health Enterprises Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, of Income Tax, The Annexe, # 98/2, Circle 2(3)(1), Rustam Bagh, HAL Airport Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 017. PAN: AAGCM 5933R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Manipal Health Enterprises of Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore – 560 017. Bangalore. PAN: AAGCM 5933R APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assess…

Manipal Health Enterprises Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle 2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1031/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Manipal Health Enterprises Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, of Income Tax, The Annexe, # 98/2, Circle 2(3)(1), Rustam Bagh, HAL Airport Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 017. PAN: AAGCM 5933R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Manipal Health Enterprises of Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore – 560 017. Bangalore. PAN: AAGCM 5933R APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assess…

Piem Hotels Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 4339/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM ITA Nos. 4338/Mum/2023 & 4339/Mum/23 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner of Piem Hotels Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2) 90 vivanta President, Aaykar Bhavan, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACP8376M Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, AR Revenue by : Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR Date of hearing: 18.04.2024 08.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA Nos. 4338 & 4339/Mum/2023 a…

Piem Hotels Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 4338/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM ITA Nos. 4338/Mum/2023 & 4339/Mum/23 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner of Piem Hotels Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2) 90 vivanta President, Aaykar Bhavan, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACP8376M Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, AR Revenue by : Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR Date of hearing: 18.04.2024 08.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA Nos. 4338 & 4339/Mum/2023 a…

M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Durg vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai

In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.66/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg Pan No. :Aagcm 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 31.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, Which Can Be Further Extended Since The Claim Of The Assessee That The Order Was Served After 38 Days Of Delay Was Not Supported By Any Documentary Evidence. As Per Appeal Memo In Form No.36, The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order Was 7Th February, 2020 & The Appeal Was Filed On 08.06.2020. On This Aspect, The Ld. Ar Submitted That This Was The Covid-19 Period & The Hon’Ble Apex Court Has Already Directed To Extend The Limitation For That Period, Therefore, The Delay May Be Condoned. The Submission Of The Ld. Ar Found Satisfactory & Acceptable & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायपुर न्यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़विया, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.66/RPR/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/s BEC Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg PAN No. :AAGCM 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Nilesh Jain, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनिाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की…

Jurimatrix Services India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangaluru

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

ITA 1652/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Years : 2014 – 15 M/S. Jurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd., Manyata Tech Park, G4 Block, The Acit, Aspen Building, Level – 2, Vs. Circle – 4(1) (1), Rachenahalli, Nagawara, Bangalore. Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 045. Pan: Aabcj6157D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K. R. Girish, C. A. Respondent By : Shri T. N. Prakash, Addl.Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Girish, C. AFor Respondent: Shri T. N. Prakash, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)

…Bang). He submitted a copy of this tribunal order and [pointed out that Para 4.5 Page 2 of 8 to 4.7 of this tribunal order are relevant in which the tribunal has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd., 316 ITR 399. Learned DR of the revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the dispute is regarding bonus paid to Mr. Abhijeet Shah, who is holding 34.62 % of the shares of the assessee company and is a director of the assessee company. It is also noted that Mr. Abhijeet Shah was p…

M/S Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2896/DEL/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…also referred to various decision wherein it has been held that such kind of bonus is allowable u/s 36(1)(ii) read with section 43B the list of such judgments relied upon by him are as under :- i. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 399; ii. Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. P. Alikunju (1987) 166 ITR 611; iii. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. D. Mohamed Ismail (1997) 227 ITR 211 (Madras); iv. Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 714 (Kerala). 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied…

M/S Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…also referred to various decision wherein it has been held that such kind of bonus is allowable u/s 36(1)(ii) read with section 43B the list of such judgments relied upon by him are as under :- i. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 399; ii. Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. P. Alikunju (1987) 166 ITR 611; iii. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. D. Mohamed Ismail (1997) 227 ITR 211 (Madras); iv. Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 714 (Kerala). 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Xerox India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2845/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…also referred to various decision wherein it has been held that such kind of bonus is allowable u/s 36(1)(ii) read with section 43B the list of such judgments relied upon by him are as under :- i. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 399; ii. Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. P. Alikunju (1987) 166 ITR 611; iii. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. D. Mohamed Ismail (1997) 227 ITR 211 (Madras); iv. Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 714 (Kerala). 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied…

CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. (127 Taxmann.com 354) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax