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)

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 466/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80Section 80l

…im of the assessee in respect of expenditure in respect to exempt income, the AO cannot invoke Rule 8D to compute the disallowance under the said Rule. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Limited reported in 370 ITR 338 (Del.) has held as under :- “Section 14A of the Act postulates and states that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Under sub Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to examine the accounts…

M/S Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 297/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80Section 80l

…im of the assessee in respect of expenditure in respect to exempt income, the AO cannot invoke Rule 8D to compute the disallowance under the said Rule. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Limited reported in 370 ITR 338 (Del.) has held as under :- “Section 14A of the Act postulates and states that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Under sub Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to examine the accounts…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1316/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…herefore 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 S…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1315/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…herefore 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 S…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1130/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…herefore 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 S…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1129/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…herefore 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 S…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Incredible Capital Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3935/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Incredible Capital Ltd., Income Tax, 8/19, Ground Floor, Smile Circle-12(1), New Delhi Chamber, Wea, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan :Aabci4307C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Incredible Capital Ltd., Income Tax, 8/19, Ground Floor, Smile Circle-12(1), New Delhi Chamber, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN :AABCI4307C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR Respondent by Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Date of hearing 02.05.2019 Date of pronouncement 08.05.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: The present appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of I…

Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 3738/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Nhpc Ltd., Tax, Circle-Ii, Nhpc Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Ita No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nhpc Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Nhpc Complex, 4Th Floor, Tax, Circle-Ii, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43A

…n respect to exempt income, the AO cannot invoke Rule 8D to compute the disallowance ITA Nos. 3650 & 3738/Del/2015 14 NHPC Ltd. under the said Rule. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Limited reported in 370 ITR 338 (Del.) has held as under :- “Section 14A of the Act postulates and states that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Under sub Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to examine the accounts…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad

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

ITA 3650/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Nhpc Ltd., Tax, Circle-Ii, Nhpc Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Ita No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nhpc Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Nhpc Complex, 4Th Floor, Tax, Circle-Ii, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43A

…n respect to exempt income, the AO cannot invoke Rule 8D to compute the disallowance ITA Nos. 3650 & 3738/Del/2015 14 NHPC Ltd. under the said Rule. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Limited reported in 370 ITR 338 (Del.) has held as under :- “Section 14A of the Act postulates and states that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Under sub Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to examine the accounts…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1(10, Chennai vs. C.Subba Reddy (HUF), Chennai

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

ITA 1464/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1079/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Acit, M/S. C. Subba Reddy (Huf), Sukriti No, 19/1, Iii Cross Street, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) R.A. Puram, Formerly Known As Business Circle-1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai Pan: Aachc2523G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1464/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs M/S. C. Subba Reddy (Huf), The Acit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) Sukriti No, 19/1, Iii Cross Formerly Known As Business Circle-1, Street, R.A. Puram, Chennai Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aachc2523G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Dr.S. Pandian, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.S. Pandian, JCIT

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

…wance U/s.14A has to be mandatorily in accordance with the Rule 8D of the Rules in all cases. The Ld.AR in support of his arguments placed reliance in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., reported in 370 ITR 338 and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 378 ITR 240. It was further argued that in the case of the assessee substantial investments are made in the assessee’s own concerns and therefore the assessee cannot be presumed to have incurred any expenditure for earning ex…

M/S C Subba Reddy (HUF), Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1079/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1079/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Acit, M/S. C. Subba Reddy (Huf), Sukriti No, 19/1, Iii Cross Street, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) R.A. Puram, Formerly Known As Business Circle-1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai Pan: Aachc2523G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1464/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs M/S. C. Subba Reddy (Huf), The Acit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) Sukriti No, 19/1, Iii Cross Formerly Known As Business Circle-1, Street, R.A. Puram, Chennai Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aachc2523G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Dr.S. Pandian, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.S. Pandian, JCIT

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

…wance U/s.14A has to be mandatorily in accordance with the Rule 8D of the Rules in all cases. The Ld.AR in support of his arguments placed reliance in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., reported in 370 ITR 338 and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 378 ITR 240. It was further argued that in the case of the assessee substantial investments are made in the assessee’s own concerns and therefore the assessee cannot be presumed to have incurred any expenditure for earning ex…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1366/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs M/S A.K. Capital Dy. Commissioner Of Services Ltd., Income-Tax 609, 6Th Floor, Antriksh Circle 3, New Delhi Bhawan, 22 K.G. Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca1069L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.11.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm Challenging The Order Dated 29.12.2015 In Appeal No.336/15-16 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-I, New Delhi

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 vs M/s A.K. Capital Dy. Commissioner of Services Ltd., Income-tax 609, 6th Floor, Antriksh Circle 3, New Delhi Bhawan, 22 K.G. Marg, New Delhi PAN: AAACA1069L Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, advocate Shri Ashish Chadha, CA Revenue by Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 05.11.2018 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Challenging the order dated 29.12.2015 in Appeal No.336/15-16 passed by the Lea…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Crown Corporation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, Cross

ITA 2097/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs M/S Crown Asstt. Commissioner Of Corporation P. Ltd., Income-Tax D-5, Defence Colony, Circle 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacc8688D C.O. No.321/Del Of 2015 (In Ita No.2097/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Crown Corporation P. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax D-5, Defence Colony, Circle 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacc8688D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Revenue By Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 05.11.2018

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 24

…ule 8D of the Rules. Obviously, the course adopted by the learned AO cannot be endorsed. 8 14. We are fortified in our above conclusion with the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 240 (Delhi); (iii) Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs CIT-III (2017) 398 ITR 51 (Delhi); (iv) Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi); and (v) Joint Investments (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi). 15. In view of the above factual and legal position, we find that…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jai Krishan Estate Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4082/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K. Saini & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jai Krishan Estate Circle-3(1), C.R. Building, Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi A-26, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi Pan :Aabcj2911R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Saurabh Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2018 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi, Dated 22.04.2015, On The Following Two Effective Grounds: 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Interest Free Loan Advance Of Rs.1,18,42,528/- Given By The Assessee. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,82,26,810/- Made U/S 14A R/W Rule 8D Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…has duly been considered by the learned CIT(A) and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to relief on merit. He also relies on the following decision: 1. Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Delhi) 3. Judgement of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT Vs. Jindal Photo Limited in ITA No. 4539/Del/2010 7 4. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Tin Works Limited in ITA No. 55/2009, dt. 13.052.2009. 5. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Chemical & Metallurgical Design Co. Ltd., in ITA No. 803/2008, dt. 1…

ACIT - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5317/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

Section 14ASection 43(5)Section 73

…contended that so far the facts for the year under consideration are concerned, rule 8D could not be invoked. The learned authorised representative in this regard has also placed on the following decisions : (a) CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 338 (Delhi) ; (b) CIT v. I. P. Support Services India (P.) Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 240 (Delhi) ; (c) Asst. CIT v. Magarpatta Township Development and Construction Co. Ltd. [2015] 152 ITD 469 ; [2014] 46 taxmann.com 284 (Pune-Trib) ; and (d) AFL P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2013] 28 ITR (Trib) 263 (Mum). 11. The learned Departmental representative on the othe…

Bio Med Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1790/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Bio Med Private Limited, Ghaziabad. C/o. Shri The JCIT, Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, vs Range-2, Chamber No.206-207, Ansal Ghaziabad. “Satyam”, RDC Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. PAN AABCB3477C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 01.06.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has…

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Express Newspapaers (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3664/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: V Mohan, ARFor Respondent: V Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D

…Godrej & Boyce Mfg-Co. Ltd vs. DCIT [2010] 234 CTR 001 (Bom); 4 Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT [2011] 203 Taxman 364/247 CTR 162 (Delhi HC); CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd. (ITA 283/2014) (Delhi HIC); CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Limited 370 ITR 338 (Del); CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. ([20151 231 Taxman 85) (Punjab & Haryana) Auchtel Products Ltd (ITA No. 3183,2649 & 3185/Mum/2011) (Order dated 30 April 2012); DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd (2011-TIOL-653- ITAT-Del): REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 144 lTD 141 ACIT v. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd (2015] 152 lTD 469…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 339/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR

Section 14A

…Delhi High Court in the case of H.T. Media Ltd. v. Pr. CIT in ITA No. 548, 549/2015 dated 23.08.2017 (b) Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. (c) Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 338  Further, it is a settled law that if the tax exempt income has been earned without the interference of any employee, no disallowance u/s 14A is called for. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Pradeep Khanna v. ACIT in ITA No. 953 of 2015 dated 11.08.2016. ITA Nos.339&340/CTK/16 &376/CTK/14 & CO.01/CTK/15&25/…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Select Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4278/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjet Singh, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4278/Del./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) DCIT, Circle 8 (1), vs. M/s. Select Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd., Suite No.101 – 103, 1st Floor, New Delhi. Kanchejuna Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAACS3260M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjet Singh, CIT DR Shri Amit Jain, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 18.04.2018 Date of Order : 23.04.2018 O R D E R PER KULDI…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 vs. M/S Moon Star Securities Trading & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/363/2018HC Delhi23 Mar 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 14ASection 153A

…nd was issued with notices under Section 153A. Disallowances were made in the course of the search assessment proceedings. The relief granted by the impugned order was based upon the decision of this Court in CIT-VI v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338 (Del) where it was held that unless the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation or the rationale which induced the assessee to offer particular amount as expenditure with some reasoning, the mere rejection per se cannot be accepted. In this case for both years, the assessee had offered amounts as disallowance claiming them to be e…

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.

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad

M/S Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

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

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

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Incredible Capital Ltd., New Delhi

Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1(10, Chennai vs. C.Subba Reddy (HUF), Chennai

M/S C Subba Reddy (HUF), Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Chennai

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Crown Corporation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jai Krishan Estate Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ACIT - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Bio Med Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Express Newspapaers (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Select Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 vs. M/S Moon Star Securities Trading & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd