CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd.

370 ITR 338High Court2015#339 most cited

What is CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. authority for?

The disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, read with Rule 8D, cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned by the assessee in the relevant previous year. If no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made.

252

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. · Section 14A · Rule 8D · disallowance for exempt income · expenditure relating to exempt income · disallowance limit · exempt income not earned · disallowance cannot exceed exempt income · dividend income · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

229 Taxmann 14354 Taxmann.com 109

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 40(a)(ia)Section 8DSection 10ASection 10AASection 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(2)section 10(34)disallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 14aprofits and gains of business or professionsection 115jsection 40(a)(ia)section 115jbsection 40(a)section 194section 37

Judgments citing CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A.K. Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1142/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA NO. 1142/Del/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1142/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2009-10 M/S AK SERVICES PRVIATE LIMITED, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VS FLAT NO. N. SAGAR APARTMENT, NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 323, 3RD FLOOR, ARA 6,TILAK NAGAR, NEW DELHI (PAN:AABCA1591L) CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Date of Hearing: 18.01.2016 Date of…

Triune Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No.2 and 2

ITA 3917/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…wn. It was his argument that without recording the satisfaction AO hasapplied the provisions of Rule 8D of IT rules 1962, which is incorrect. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of honourable Delhi high court CIT Vs.Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Del), decisions of Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Kalyani Steels Ltd Vs. ACIT, ACIT Vs. Magarpatta Township Development and Construction company ltd., M/s. Minda Capital Ltd. Vs. DCIT and host of other decisions. His argument is that if the investment in subsidiaries and in fixed maturity plans and investment in taxable bonds shouldbe exclude…

M/S. U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2979/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiu. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Range-18, Vs. 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Zamrudpur, Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit, U.K.Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., Range-18, 19, Dda Commercial Complex, Vs. Room No.211A, Zamrudpur, C.R.Building Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Anil Bhalla, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…has not recorded any satisfaction relating to the books of account of amount of disallowance made. 77% of the dividend income is received from one company Berger Paints Ltd and AO has made only lump sum disallowance. 8. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of 370 ITR 338 has held if no satisfaction is recorded by the AO as provided u/s 14A(2) of the Act the non disallowance can be made. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V Taikisha Engineering India Limited 370 ITR 338 ( Del) has held that Under sub- Page 5 of 7 section (2) of section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer is required to examine the…

M/S. Cj International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 386/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate and Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

…count was a jurisdictional pre- requisite before invoking provision of Rule 8D. In support of his proposition the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. reported in 370 ITR 338 (Del). We principally agree with the said contention of the assessee. The AO should have first examined the books of accounts of the assessee and only thereafter if he was not satisfied with the claimed by the assessee that it had not incurred any expenditure for the purpose of any exempt income that he could have invoked provisions of Rule 8D.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.J. International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 218/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate and Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

…count was a jurisdictional pre- requisite before invoking provision of Rule 8D. In support of his proposition the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. reported in 370 ITR 338 (Del). We principally agree with the said contention of the assessee. The AO should have first examined the books of accounts of the assessee and only thereafter if he was not satisfied with the claimed by the assessee that it had not incurred any expenditure for the purpose of any exempt income that he could have invoked provisions of Rule 8D.…

M/S. Cj International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 787/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate and Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

…count was a jurisdictional pre- requisite before invoking provision of Rule 8D. In support of his proposition the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. reported in 370 ITR 338 (Del). We principally agree with the said contention of the assessee. The AO should have first examined the books of accounts of the assessee and only thereafter if he was not satisfied with the claimed by the assessee that it had not incurred any expenditure for the purpose of any exempt income that he could have invoked provisions of Rule 8D.…

M/S. Cj International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 771/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate and Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

…count was a jurisdictional pre- requisite before invoking provision of Rule 8D. In support of his proposition the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. reported in 370 ITR 338 (Del). We principally agree with the said contention of the assessee. The AO should have first examined the books of accounts of the assessee and only thereafter if he was not satisfied with the claimed by the assessee that it had not incurred any expenditure for the purpose of any exempt income that he could have invoked provisions of Rule 8D.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.J. International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1107/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate and Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

…count was a jurisdictional pre- requisite before invoking provision of Rule 8D. In support of his proposition the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. reported in 370 ITR 338 (Del). We principally agree with the said contention of the assessee. The AO should have first examined the books of accounts of the assessee and only thereafter if he was not satisfied with the claimed by the assessee that it had not incurred any expenditure for the purpose of any exempt income that he could have invoked provisions of Rule 8D.…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Bhoruka Park Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 114/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA
Section 14A

…followed and prorate interest payable on borrowings should disallowed, even if the Assessee had sufficient owned funds for making the investments. 8. We have heard both the parties. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD (370 ITR 338) has held that under sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer is required to examine the accounts of the assessee and only when he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income, can he & CO No.144/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 13 determine…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Infomedia 18 Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4846/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi, (Jm) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4069/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Range 6(1), Vs. Ruby House, A –Wing, Mumbai. J K Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4846/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Tax , Circle 6(1), Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Vs. Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Ruby House, A –Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, J K Sawant Marg, M K Road, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…te the disallowance u/s 14A and hence he could not have invoked the provisions of Rule 8D. In support of this proposition, the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (370 ITR 338). We agree with the said contentions of the assessee. The AO should first examine the workings made by the assessee to compute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and if he is not satisfied with the same, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, then he can resort to the provisions of Rule 8D. In the instant case, the assessing officer has…

Infomedia Press Ltd ( Formerly Known Infomedia 18 Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi, (Jm) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4069/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Range 6(1), Vs. Ruby House, A –Wing, Mumbai. J K Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4846/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-2008-09) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Infomedia Press Ltd (Formerly Tax , Circle 6(1), Known As Infomedia 18 Ltd), Vs. Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Ruby House, A –Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, J K Sawant Marg, M K Road, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…te the disallowance u/s 14A and hence he could not have invoked the provisions of Rule 8D. In support of this proposition, the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (370 ITR 338). We agree with the said contentions of the assessee. The AO should first examine the workings made by the assessee to compute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and if he is not satisfied with the same, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, then he can resort to the provisions of Rule 8D. In the instant case, the assessing officer has…

Greaves Cotton Ltd (Formerly Known As Greaves Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7356/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80H

…was made and this fact has been accepted till the stage of the Tribunal. In any case, now this issue stands covered by decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank, 366 ITR 505 and Delhi High Court in the case of Taikisha Engineering, 370 ITR 338. 8. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has only tried to work out a reasonable basis for disallowance for which he has taken a same clue from formula laid down in Rule 8D. It is the onus of the assessee to prove the nexus between the investment made and interest free funds and also the expenditures debited in the P&L Acc…