CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT v. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT v. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd.?

55 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT v. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd. (378 ITR 240), spanning 2016 to 2026.

378 ITR 240High Court2015#2091 most cited

What is CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT v. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd. authority for?

Invocation of Section 14A is not automatic merely because exempt income is claimed; the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction that the assessee's voluntary disallowance or claim of no expenditure is unreasonable before making a disallowance.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd · CIT v. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd · Section 14A · disallowance for exempt income · Assessing Officer satisfaction · voluntary disallowance unreasonable · no automatic invocation of Section 14A · nexus of expenses

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(8)section 194h section 80ic section 194j section 40a(2)(b)section 14a(2)section 2(22)section 2(22)(e)section 40a(2)section 80ia commercial expediency disallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT v. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

…Del) – SLP dismissed in CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: S.L.P. (C) 27628 of 2018. / 408 ITR-OL 22 (St.)  PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.)  CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H)  CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del)  Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del)  CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.)  DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited: ITA Nos. 814/Del./2011 (Del)  PTC India Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA Nos. 580 and 581 (Del) 2009 (Del)  Auchtel Products Ltd vs. ACIT: 52 SOT 39 (Mum) (URO)  Kodak India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT: ITA No. 7349…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. ATS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, DELHI

ITA 5629/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Section 14Section 14A

…ed for earning exempt income. 8. In so far as the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, we noticed that the Tribunal in para 8 observed that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of I.P. Support Services (India) Ltd. 378 ITR 240 held that “no disallowance be made in the absence of satisfaction as to why voluntarily disclosure made by assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory…

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…32 - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) - Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) (Del) - CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) Even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses with investments, warranting disallowance under section 14A. Interest Expenditure [Disallowance under Rule 8D(ii)l Th…

M/S. SVL LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2113/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2113/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Svl Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Shriram House, 1St Floor, Income Tax, No.4, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs-7696-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Chinthapalli Meher Chand, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chinthapalli Meher Chand

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…was incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income. In this connection the appellant relies on the following judgments: a. CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd ( 229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC. b. CIT Vs I P Support Services India P Ltd ( 378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. c. Principal CIT Vs Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited (Bombay HC (400 ITR 217)). SLP against this judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble SC. SLP(C) No.11379 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 ( 259 Taxman 83).” 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The brief facts of the ca…

HALDIA COKE AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 11, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 470/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(13)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I-1’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Haldia Coke And Chemicals Additional Commissioner of Private Limited, Income-tax, 6th Floor, Mookambika Vs Range-11, Complex, Lady Desika Road, New Delhi Mylapore, Chennai-600004 PAN-AABCH5389P Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 25.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Assessing Officer, d…

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.684/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumar Properties & Real Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Pune. Estate Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Kumar Capital, East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. Pan : Aaack7490H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan R. Vora & Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2022 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)- 7, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 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 Promoter & Developer Of The Housing Project. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora &For Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22

…eld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited, 400 ITR 217, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 229 Taxman 143 and CIT vs. I P Support Services India P. Ltd, 378 ITR 240. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) upheld as follows :- “41. Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that…

SRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CC 6(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 956/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.956/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Shriram Credit Co. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Corporate Circle-6(1), Burkit Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai. [Pan: Aagcs 4497 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…sed by the Hon'ble SC. SLP(C) No. 11379 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 (259 Taxman 83). ii. Marg Limited Vs CIT [2020] 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Madras) iii. CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC. iv. CIT Vs I.P.Support Services India P Ltd ( 378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. v. ITAT Chennai decision in the appellant's case in I.T.A. NO. 1767 / Chny/ 2019 dated 16.12.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. 6. For these grounds and other grounds that maybe adduced before or at the time of hearing the Hon’ble ITAT may be pleased to delete the addition made u/s.14A r.w.r.8D. 3. We have heard the rival contenti…

SVL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CC 6(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 955/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.955/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Svl Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Corporate Circle-6(2), Burkit Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7696 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ssed by the Hon'ble SC. SLP(C) No. 11379 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 (259 Taxman 83). ii) Marg Limited Vs CIT [2020] 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Madras) iii) CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC. iv) CIT Vs I.P.Support Services India P Ltd (378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. For these and other grounds that may be adduced before or at the time of hearing the Hon'ble ITAT may be pleased to delete the addition made u/s.14A r.w Rule 8D. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has earned dividend income from mutual funds amo…

SHRIRAM FINANCIAL VENTURES (CHENNAI) PVT. LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCITCC3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 942/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.941/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Shriram Capital Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Burkit Road, Corporate Circle-6(1), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcs 2726 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT /

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ismissed by the Hon'ble SC. SLP(C) No.11379 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 (259 Taxman 83). ii. Marg Limited Vs CIT [2020] 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Madras) iii. CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC. iv. CIT Vs I P Support Services India P Ltd (378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. 8. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that in the appellant's case the ITAT Chennai in their orders in 1.T.A No.1766 / Chny / 2019 dated 16.12.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14, has deleted the addition made u/s.14A r.w.rule 8D as the Assessing Officer has not recorded any findings as to the correctness or otherwise of…

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 941/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT /

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

DCIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TRANSCEND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5178/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadcit Vs. Transcend Infrastructure Circle – 25(2) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi - 110002 Plot No. B-15, Ff, Sec-32, Gurgaon-122 001 Pan No. Aacct 7115 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…submissions. In such situation, when the issue has been decided by various Courts, firstly we have to go through the ratios of decisions of jurisdictional High Court which are binding on us. In the case CIT vs I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd. reported in 378 ITR 240, while dealing this issue, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that it is erroneous premise that the invocation of Section 14A is automatic and comes into operation as soon as the dividend income is claimed as exempt. It is further held that for making disallowance u/s 14A, the pre- condition is satisfaction of assessing officer that volun…

SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3254/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3254/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 4, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 28.08.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) The Order Of The Cit{A) In I.T.A.No.16 1201-1-181 Cit(A)-15 Dated 28.08.2018 Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case. 2) The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Part Of The Disallowance Made U/S14A R.W. Rule 8D 3) The Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Entire Dividend Income Received From Mutual Fund Of Rs.29,98,544 Was Credited To 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the correctness of the amount disallowed by the appellant of Rs.4,900 u/s 14A. In this connection the appellant relies on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC. 2. CIT Vs I P Support Services India P Ltd ( 378 ITR 240).Delhi HC 6) Without prejudice to the above grounds, the following grounds are raised: i) The CIT(A) erred in overlooking the following decisions wherein it has been held that investments from which no exempt income was received have to be excluded for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s.14A Rule 8D. a) ITAT Chennai "C" Bench decision…

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) vii. Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) viii. PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) x. CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) xi. Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) xii. CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) 42. It was further submitted that even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses with investments, warranting disallowance under section 14A. 43. With respect to the…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI vs. MLV CREDITS HOLDING & LEASING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6668/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Modern Mvl Credits Circle-17(1), Holding & Leasing Ltd. New Delhi F-79,/18, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110062 Pan-Aaacm9072H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…facts of the case are to be interpreted in the light of decisions of various Courts, firstly we have to go through the ratios of decisions of jurisdictional High Court which are binding on us. In a case CIT vs I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd. reported in 378 ITR 240, while dealing this issue, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that it is erroneous premise that the invocation of Section 14A is automatic and comes into operation as soon as the dividend income is claimed as exempt. It is further held that for making disallowance u/s 14A, the pre- condition is satisfaction of assessing officer that volun…

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…hi) - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT - Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) - CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) 40.0.2 It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses with investments, warranting disallowanc…

PADMINI VNA MECHATRONICS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly allowed

ITA 1027/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 14A

…the calculation of assessee is not correct and relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., I.P. Support 4 ITA.No.1027/Del./2017 Padmini Vna Mechatronics (P) Ltd., New Delhi. Services India (P) Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 240 (Del.) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., (2015) 370 ITR 0338 (Delhi). In view of the above facts, it is clear that the satisfaction is not discerning from the impugned orders while making the disallowance under section 14A and that the average of such investments has to be taken, on which, exempted income has be…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SVL LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 3218/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Gautam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shr. Abani Kanta Nayam, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…incorrect resort to provisions of Section 14A of the Act cannot be made and he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 229 Taxman 143 and CIT vs. I P Support Services India P. Ltd 378 ITR 240. ITA Nos.3167 & 3218/18 :- 4 -: On the other hand, the ld. CIT (Departmental 5. Representative) placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the perusal of para 3.3 of the assessment order, it is clear that Assessing Officer gave categorical finding that assessee…

SVL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP WARD 6(3), CHENNAI

ITA 3167/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Gautam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shr. Abani Kanta Nayam, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3