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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd.?

252 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (370 ITR 338), spanning 2015 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 8D, Section 10A.

CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (370 ITR 338)

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…ed on 7-7-2020], has relied upon the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 295/233 Taxman 117/372 ITR 694 (Delhi) and CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd. [2015] 54 taxmann.com 109/229 Taxman 143/370 ITR 338 (Delhi) and Bombay High Court decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 194 Taxman 203/328 ITR 81 and categorically held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making excessive disallowance beyond the dividend income declared by the Assessee. 10. A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, to which one of us (V…

Asst. Commissioner of Incometax, Circle 2(1), Trichy Stationed at Thanjavur, Thanjavur vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, both the appeals raised by Revenue are

ITA 2877/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Shivanand K.Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. S.Ananthan,CA &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…. Therefore this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands allowed in favour of the assessee’’. Similar view was taken up by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had firmly held that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be accepted. This decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supr…

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Trichy Stationed at Thanjavur, Thanjavur vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, both the appeals raised by Revenue are

ITA 2876/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Shivanand K.Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. S.Ananthan,CA &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…. Therefore this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands allowed in favour of the assessee’’. Similar view was taken up by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had firmly held that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be accepted. This decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supr…

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7429/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…r. It has accordingly being argued that in the absence of Ld. AO’s satisfaction, no addition was required to be made. In support of his arguments the Ld. Counsel has invited reference to decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of TaiKisha Engineering 370 ITR 338 Delhi and of this Tribunal in the case of HT Media Ltd. ITA No.548-549/Del/2015 dated 23.08.2017. The Ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of lower authorities. 18. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that this Tribunalin I.T.A. No.5958/DEL/2015 in the case of M/S PARAS BUILDTECH (IND…

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7428/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…r. It has accordingly being argued that in the absence of Ld. AO’s satisfaction, no addition was required to be made. In support of his arguments the Ld. Counsel has invited reference to decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of TaiKisha Engineering 370 ITR 338 Delhi and of this Tribunal in the case of HT Media Ltd. ITA No.548-549/Del/2015 dated 23.08.2017. The Ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of lower authorities. 18. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that this Tribunalin I.T.A. No.5958/DEL/2015 in the case of M/S PARAS BUILDTECH (IND…

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7427/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…r. It has accordingly being argued that in the absence of Ld. AO’s satisfaction, no addition was required to be made. In support of his arguments the Ld. Counsel has invited reference to decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of TaiKisha Engineering 370 ITR 338 Delhi and of this Tribunal in the case of HT Media Ltd. ITA No.548-549/Del/2015 dated 23.08.2017. The Ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of lower authorities. 18. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that this Tribunalin I.T.A. No.5958/DEL/2015 in the case of M/S PARAS BUILDTECH (IND…

Praj Industries Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1413/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1413/PUN/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Praj Industries Limited, DCIT, Central Circle – 1(1), Praj Tower, S. No. 274 & 275/2, Pune Bhumkar Chowk-Hinjewadi Road, Vs. Hinjewadi, Pune-411057 PAN : AAACP6090Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Paresh Shaparia Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing : 08-05-2024 Date of 27-06-2024 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER AS…

Thrrill Park Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -Appeals, Delhi

ITA 316/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…DT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11th February 2014 which clarified that Section 14A would apply even when exempt income was not earned in a particular AY. According to him, the other decisions of this Court in CIT-IV v. Taikisha Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.[2015] 370 ITR 338 (Del) and CIT-IV v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del) 282 did not actually discuss the above Circular of the CBDT and, therefore, would be distinguishable. 10. Mr. Hossain further submitted that there was nothing in Section 14A of the Act which suggested that exempt income had to necessarily be earned in the AY in question for the appli…

Pradipta Kumar Parida DCIT321, Mumbai vs. Kail Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4669/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…DT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11th February 2014 which clarified that Section 14A would apply even when exempt income was not earned in a particular AY. According to him, the other decisions of this Court in CIT-IV v. Taikisha Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.[2015] 370 ITR 338 (Del) and CIT-IV v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del) 282 did not actually discuss the above Circular of the CBDT and, therefore, would be distinguishable. 10. Mr. Hossain further submitted that there was nothing in Section 14A of the Act which suggested that exempt income had to necessarily be earned in the AY in question for the appli…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 672/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…. Therefore this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands allowed in favour of the assessee’’. Similar view was taken up by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had firmly held that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be accepted. This decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supr…

DCIT Circle-2(1), Trichy vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…. Therefore this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands allowed in favour of the assessee’’. Similar view was taken up by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had firmly held that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be accepted. This decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supr…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…. Therefore this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands allowed in favour of the assessee’’. Similar view was taken up by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had firmly held that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be accepted. This decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supr…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1418/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…. Therefore this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands allowed in favour of the assessee’’. Similar view was taken up by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had firmly held that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be accepted. This decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supr…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1121/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…. Therefore this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands allowed in favour of the assessee’’. Similar view was taken up by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had firmly held that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be accepted. This decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supr…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…. Therefore this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands allowed in favour of the assessee’’. Similar view was taken up by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had firmly held that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be accepted. This decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supr…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alpha G. Corp. Development Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merit is dismissed

ITA 6049/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Debesh Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Kumar &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…were acquired by it pursuant to an amalgamation order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated October 3, 2007. In the case of the assessee, thus the “casual connection” clearly stands broken. 14.5 The Ld. AR also submitted that in CIT vs. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd. 370 ITR 338 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where the assessee has sufficient funds for making investments in shares and mutual funds, and there is a failure of the Assessing Officer to hold and record his satisfaction, it will clinch the issue in favour of the assessee. This squarely applies to the case of the assessee in the present appeal. 15. We…

Shriram Capital Private Limited(Formerly Known As Shriram Financial Ventures(Chennai) Private Limited), Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Cirlcle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 813/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 813/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shriram Capital Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Shriram V. Income Tax, Financial Ventures (Chennai) Corporate Circle 3(1), Private Limited) Chennai. Shriram House No. 4, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aapcs-5667-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80M

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 813/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shriram Capital Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of (Formerly known as Shriram v. Income Tax, Financial Ventures (Chennai) Corporate Circle 3(1), Private Limited) Chennai. Shriram House No. 4, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAPCS-5667-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"…

Fomento Karnataka Mining Company Private Limited (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited, Panaji vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao

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

ITA 26/PAN/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pan/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Fomento Karnataka Mining Vs. Jcit, Margao Range, Company Private Limited, Margao, Goa. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited), 102, 1St Floor, Kamat Metropolis-I, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa- 403001. Pan : Aaacf7487K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 27.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Trading In The Iron Ore. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,40,77,220/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) At A Total Income Of Rs.26,63,57,955/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Made Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.15,49,787/-, Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Extracting As Fictitious Of Rs.7,30,948/-. 3. Being Aggrieved, An Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Contending That No Disallowance U/S 14A Is Required To Be Made In The Absence Of Any Expenditure Incurred To Earn The Exempt Income. It Was Also Contended That No Addition On Account Of Outstanding Creditors Is Required To Be Made, As The Credits Represent The Opening

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…lowance and enhanced it does not mean that Rule 8D becomes applicable and the disallowance should be computed as per the prescribed formula.” 9. The similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338 (Del) and PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105 taxmann.com 274. In the present case, the Assessing Officer merely observed that the assessee company made substantial investments in mutual funds and therefore, incurred substantial expenditure to earn the exempt income and in the circumstances, he was of the opinion tha…

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 143(3)Section 80C

…cash credits are unexplained and P a g e 6 | 12 ITA Nos.120 to 123/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 represent the assessee's income. ln the absence of such material, the addition could not be made. CIT v. Taikisha Engineering lndia Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 666 (Delhi HC) ln this case, the Delhi High court held that the mere fact that the assessee could not provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of the investment could not lead to the presumption that it was the assessee's income. The court held that the AO must have some material to show that the investment represented the assessee's income…

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 143(3)Section 80C

…cash credits are unexplained and P a g e 6 | 12 ITA Nos.120 to 123/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 represent the assessee's income. ln the absence of such material, the addition could not be made. CIT v. Taikisha Engineering lndia Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 666 (Delhi HC) ln this case, the Delhi High court held that the mere fact that the assessee could not provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of the investment could not lead to the presumption that it was the assessee's income. The court held that the AO must have some material to show that the investment represented the assessee's income…

CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd.

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

Asst. Commissioner of Incometax, Circle 2(1), Trichy Stationed at Thanjavur, Thanjavur vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Trichy Stationed at Thanjavur, Thanjavur vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

Praj Industries Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

Thrrill Park Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -Appeals, Delhi

Pradipta Kumar Parida DCIT321, Mumbai vs. Kail Limited, Mumbai

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

DCIT Circle-2(1), Trichy vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alpha G. Corp. Development Ltd., New Delhi

Shriram Capital Private Limited(Formerly Known As Shriram Financial Ventures(Chennai) Private Limited), Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Cirlcle-3(1), Chennai

Fomento Karnataka Mining Company Private Limited (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited, Panaji vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack