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

378 ITR 240High Court2015#2090 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?

Expenditure incurred to earn exempt income is not deductible if the assessee proves no expenditure was actually incurred or if investments were made for commercial expediency.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd · CIT v. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd · section 14A · disallowance under section 14A · exempt income · dividend income · commercial expediency · no expenditure incurred

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(8)section 194hsection 80icsection 194jsection 40a(2)(b)section 14a(2)section 2(22)section 2(22)(e)section 40a(2)section 80iacommercial expediencydisallowance under section 14a

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

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5601/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…2018 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi made the addition because assessee has earned dividend income. Thus, these are not sufficient to make any addition against the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of I.P. Support Services India Ltd., 378 ITR 240 9Del.) (HC) held that “no disallowance be made in the absence of satisfaction as to why voluntary disclosure made by assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory.” Similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338 (Del.) (HC). The Hon’ble Punjab…

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5408/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…2018 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi made the addition because assessee has earned dividend income. Thus, these are not sufficient to make any addition against the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of I.P. Support Services India Ltd., 378 ITR 240 9Del.) (HC) held that “no disallowance be made in the absence of satisfaction as to why voluntary disclosure made by assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory.” Similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338 (Del.) (HC). The Hon’ble Punjab…

M/S. Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3080/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…2018 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi made the addition because assessee has earned dividend income. Thus, these are not sufficient to make any addition against the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of I.P. Support Services India Ltd., 378 ITR 240 9Del.) (HC) held that “no disallowance be made in the absence of satisfaction as to why voluntary disclosure made by assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory.” Similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338 (Del.) (HC). The Hon’ble Punjab…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2014/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…d in relation to the income which does not form part of total income. In this connection the appellant rely on the Delhi High court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd (378 ITR 240). 4. without prejudice to the appellants ground that the disallowance u/s 14A rw Rule 8D is not attracted the following grounds are raised. a) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant has not received any dividend income from the investment made in Associate Enterprises, Subsidiary Companies, Joint Ventures, Associates a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2013/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…d in relation to the income which does not form part of total income. In this connection the appellant rely on the Delhi High court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd (378 ITR 240). 4. without prejudice to the appellants ground that the disallowance u/s 14A rw Rule 8D is not attracted the following grounds are raised. a) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant has not received any dividend income from the investment made in Associate Enterprises, Subsidiary Companies, Joint Ventures, Associates a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2012/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…d in relation to the income which does not form part of total income. In this connection the appellant rely on the Delhi High court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd (378 ITR 240). 4. without prejudice to the appellants ground that the disallowance u/s 14A rw Rule 8D is not attracted the following grounds are raised. a) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant has not received any dividend income from the investment made in Associate Enterprises, Subsidiary Companies, Joint Ventures, Associates a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2011/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…d in relation to the income which does not form part of total income. In this connection the appellant rely on the Delhi High court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd (378 ITR 240). 4. without prejudice to the appellants ground that the disallowance u/s 14A rw Rule 8D is not attracted the following grounds are raised. a) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant has not received any dividend income from the investment made in Associate Enterprises, Subsidiary Companies, Joint Ventures, Associates a…

Shriram Epc Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1740/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…d in relation to the income which does not form part of total income. In this connection the appellant rely on the Delhi High court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd (378 ITR 240). 4. without prejudice to the appellants ground that the disallowance u/s 14A rw Rule 8D is not attracted the following grounds are raised. a) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant has not received any dividend income from the investment made in Associate Enterprises, Subsidiary Companies, Joint Ventures, Associates a…

Shriram Epc Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1604/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…d in relation to the income which does not form part of total income. In this connection the appellant rely on the Delhi High court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd(229 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs. I.P. Support Services India Pvt Ltd (378 ITR 240). 4. without prejudice to the appellants ground that the disallowance u/s 14A rw Rule 8D is not attracted the following grounds are raised. a) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant has not received any dividend income from the investment made in Associate Enterprises, Subsidiary Companies, Joint Ventures, Associates a…

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1250/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234D

…fied above the correctness of the amount disallowed by the appellant u/s.14A. In this connection the appellant relies on the following decisions. i. CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (229 Taxman 143) Delhi HC ii. CIT Vs I P Support Services India P Ltd (378 ITR 240) Delhi HC. iii. 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). 5. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the investments in subsidiary companies and associate companies were…

For Svl Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3096/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Mudit Bohara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 92C

…& 3060/Chny/17 I.T.A. Nos.3095 & 3096/Chny/17 uls.14A of Rs. 72,77,740/-. In this connection the appellant relies on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (299 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs I P Support Services India Ltd (378 ITR 240). 6. 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 disallowance made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D. 11. The assessee contended that the provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable since the investments were made only in subsidiary companies for strategic purpose…

For Svl Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3095/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Mudit Bohara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 92C

…& 3060/Chny/17 I.T.A. Nos.3095 & 3096/Chny/17 uls.14A of Rs. 72,77,740/-. In this connection the appellant relies on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (299 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs I P Support Services India Ltd (378 ITR 240). 6. 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 disallowance made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D. 11. The assessee contended that the provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable since the investments were made only in subsidiary companies for strategic purpose…

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Shriram Venture Ltd., Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3060/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Mudit Bohara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 92C

…& 3060/Chny/17 I.T.A. Nos.3095 & 3096/Chny/17 uls.14A of Rs. 72,77,740/-. In this connection the appellant relies on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (299 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs I P Support Services India Ltd (378 ITR 240). 6. 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 disallowance made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D. 11. The assessee contended that the provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable since the investments were made only in subsidiary companies for strategic purpose…

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Shriram Venture Ltd., Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3059/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Mudit Bohara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 92C

…& 3060/Chny/17 I.T.A. Nos.3095 & 3096/Chny/17 uls.14A of Rs. 72,77,740/-. In this connection the appellant relies on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (299 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs I P Support Services India Ltd (378 ITR 240). 6. 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 disallowance made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D. 11. The assessee contended that the provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable since the investments were made only in subsidiary companies for strategic purpose…

Harparshad and Company Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R
Section 14A

…he A.O. relied upon Order of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2009-2010 in which the matter was remanded to the file of A.O. and no fresh finding have been given against the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of I.P. Support Services India Pvt. Ltd., 378 ITR 240 held that “no disallowance be made in the absence of satisfaction as to why voluntary disclosure made by the assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory.” Similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Indust…

Harparshad and Company Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R
Section 14A

…he A.O. relied upon Order of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2009-2010 in which the matter was remanded to the file of A.O. and no fresh finding have been given against the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of I.P. Support Services India Pvt. Ltd., 378 ITR 240 held that “no disallowance be made in the absence of satisfaction as to why voluntary disclosure made by the assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory.” Similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Indust…

Shriraminsight Share Brokers Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2975/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2975/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Lady Vs. Income Tax, Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci2727H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Gautham Venketanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai Dated 31.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Part Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D, Disallowance Of Depreciation In Respect Of Royalty, Disallowance Of Bad Debt & Part

For Appellant: Shri S. Gautham VenketanarayananFor Respondent: Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 14A

…ing Officer’s satisfaction that voluntary disallowance made by assessee unreasonable and unsatisfactory, 3 I.T.A. No.2975/Chny/18 was not adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). By referring to the decision in the case of CIT v. I.P. Support Services India (P.) Ltd. 378 ITR 240 (Delhi) and CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Del), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for deleting the disallowance confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through…

Svl Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3004/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ctness of the amount disallowed by the assessee u/s.14A of Rs.53,353/-. In this connection, the appellant relies on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (299 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs I P Support Services India Ltd ( 378 ITR 240). 6. 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 disallowance made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D. 6. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in resorting the provision of Sec.14A without recording his satisfaction as to how the claim of the asse…

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Svl Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2734/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ctness of the amount disallowed by the assessee u/s.14A of Rs.53,353/-. In this connection, the appellant relies on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (299 Taxman 143) and CIT Vs I P Support Services India Ltd ( 378 ITR 240). 6. 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 disallowance made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D. 6. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in resorting the provision of Sec.14A without recording his satisfaction as to how the claim of the asse…

Resurgere Mines & Minerals India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee partly allowed

ITA 6601/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Ms. Umang LuthraFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

…04 (P&H) observed that “Assessee did not make claim of expenses -14A do not apply – Own funds used to acquire shares and no expenses incurred, therefore, no addition could be made. Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of I.P. Support Services India Limited 378 ITR 240 (Del.) held that “No disallowance be made under section 14A in the absence of satisfaction as to why voluntary disclosure made by the assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory”. The Honourable Punjab and Haryana high court in the case of Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H) noted that “Assessee claimed old investments out of capital and reserve…