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#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.

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 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.

Vikas Globalone Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Piyush KamalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 37Section 80I

…IT vs., Winsome Textile Industries Ltd., 319 ITR 204 (P&H) observed that assessee did not make claim of expenses, 14A do not apply. Own funds used to acquire shares, no expenses incurred. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of IP Support Services India Ltd., 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 Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court 14 ITA.No.2498/Del./2018 M/s. Vikas Globalone Ltd., (Now known as M/s. Vikas Ecotech Ltd.,) New Delhi. in the case of Kapson…

The ACIT-2(1), Ujjain vs. M/S. Turquise Investment & Finance Pvt.Ltd., Nagda

In the result, against total disallowance of Rs

ITA 332/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…d. vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81) (Bom) 3. Affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 4. H.T. Media Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 85 Taxmann.com 113 (Del. HC) 5. CIT vs. I.P. Support Services Indid(P.) Ltd. (378 ITR 240) Del. HC) 6. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 164 ITD 42 (Mum. Trib) 7. Anshul Special melecules Limited vs. DCIT (ITANo.4436/Mum/2016) Mum. Trib Torquise Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITANos.332 & 333/Ind/2017 8. DCB Birla Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITANo.5706/Mum/2015) Mum Trib. 9. Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017) 165 ITD 6…

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)

…ced 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 exempt income and hence provisions of Section 14A of the Act will not be applicable in the case of the assessee. Hence it was pleaded tha…

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

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

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

Tata Steel Ltd. (Successor-in-Interest to the Erstwhile Kalimati Investment Company Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhtata Steel Ltd. (Successor-In- Dcit - 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Interest To The Erstwhile Kalimati Investment Company Ltd.), Vs. Room No. 552, M.K. Marg, Bombay House, 24 Homi Modi Mumbai-400020. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aaact2803M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Raja A. Kapadia (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. DR)

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 234Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Tata Steel Ltd. (Successor-in- DCIT - 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5th Floor, Interest to the Erstwhile Kalimati Investment Company Ltd.), Vs. Room No. 552, M.K. Marg, Bombay House, 24 Homi Modi Mumbai-400020. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. PAN: AAACT2803M Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Raja A. Kapadia (AR) Respondent by : Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 06.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH,…

Cedar Infonet Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6080/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Cedar Infonet Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, C/o- R.S. Ahuja & Co., CAs., Central Circle-11, New Delhi C-353, Defence Colony, New Delhi PAN :AABCC9486E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. R.S. Ahuja & Sahil Jain, CAs Respondent by Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Sr.DR Date of hearing 30.08.2018 Date of pronouncement 12.10.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee has been preferred against the order dated 31/12/2013 passed by the…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…8D is not automatic and he relies on the decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) (81 taxmann.com 111) (SC), Maxopp Investment Ltd. Mangalore Refinery (203 Taxmann 364) (Del HC), CIT v. I.P Support Services India Private Limited (378 ITR 240) (Del HC), CIT v. REI Agro Ltd. (ITA No. 161 of 2013) (Cal. HC) and Graviss Hospitality Ltd. v. DCIT (67 SOT 184) (Mum). It is further submitted that the assessee has sufficient own funds/net worth as compared to the investments made as can be seen from the audited financial statements and accordingly, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. Relian…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

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

…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 other hand has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 12. We have consi…

Juniper Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT WD 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4273/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Juniper Hotels P. Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Off Western Express Of Income Tax-10(1) Vs. Highway, Santacruz (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400055. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaecs6336E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Bhandari, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Bhandari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143Section 14A

…could not have proceeded mechanically to apply Rule 8D. Reliance is placed by him on the decision of the ITAT dated 21.09.2016 in the case of the assessee for the AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 100/Mum/2015 and the decision in CIT v. IP Support Services India (P) Ltd 378 ITR 240 (Del.). 4.3 On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. As mentioned at para 4 hereinbefore, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had asked the assessee to explain as to why certain portion of the expenses claimed b…

Take Solutions Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 175/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 92B

…h does not form part of total income. In this connection, the assessee relied on the Delhi High court judgments in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., (229 Taxman 143) and in the case of CIT vs. I.P. Support :-8-: Services (India) P. Ltd., (378 ITR 240). Without prejudice to its grounds that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is not attracted, the AR submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in taking value of the investments in subsidiary companies in computing the amount of disallowance under Rule 8D 2(ii) and 2(iii). In this connection the appellant rely on the following jud…

Brics Gilt Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1157/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1157/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Brics Gilt Finance Private बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax 1(2) Vs. 4Th Floor, Sadhna House, Room No.537, 570 P.B.Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Behind Mahindra Towers, New Marine Lines, Worli, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400018 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj8885B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…contentions the learned representative of the assessee has placed reliance on the law settled mentioned below:- Rule 8D of the Rules is not automatic: 1. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81)(Bom) 2. CIT Vs. I.P. Support Services India (P.) Ltd.(378 ITR 240)(Del. HC) 3. Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (203 Taxmann 364)(Del HC) 4. CIT Vs. REI Agro Ltd. (ITAT No.161 of 2013)(Cal. HC) 5. Graviss Hospitality Ltd. Vs. DCIT (67 SOT 184)(Mum.Trib) 6. Auchtel Products Ltd. Vs. ACIT (52 SOT 39) (Mum. Trib) 7. DCIT Vs. Jindal Photo Limited and vice versa (ITA No.814 (Del) 2011 and CO 91 (Del) 2011) 8. Allahaba…

Jm Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3654/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, D.R

Section 14A

…s for the year under consideration are concerned, rule 8D could not be invoked. The Ld. AR in this regard has also placed on the following decisions: a) CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 275 (Del) b) I. P. Support Services India (P.) Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 240 (Del) c) ACIT v. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co Ltd. (2015) 152 ITD 469/(2014) 46 taxmann.com 284 (Pune - Trib.). AFL P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2013) 28 ITR (Trib.) 263 (Mumbai) d) 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 12. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through recor…

The Laxmi Salt Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2434/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri N. Acharya Baduri, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Das, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nt reasons and it is only then that the question of determination of such expenditure by the AO would arise. For this proposition he also placed reliance on the decisions reported in 347 ITR 272 (Del), 361 ITR 131(P&H), 372 ITR 694(Del), 376 ITR 390(Del), AND 378 ITR 240 (Del). 5 The Laxmi Salt Co. Ltd. AY 2009-10 10. In COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, CALCUTTA Versus ASHISH JHUNJHUNWALA G.A. No. 2990 of 2013, wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta confirmed the following observations of this Tribunal in ITA No 1809/Kol/2012: “While rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to e…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Galileo India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate

Section 14A

…nvoked sub-rule (2) of rule 8D of the Rules and made the re- computation. Therefore, the respondent-assessee would succeed and the appeals should be dismissed.” ii. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 240 (Del.): Similarly held that the approach of the AO in invoking section 14A without recording his satisfaction as to why the voluntary disallowance by the assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory is not sustainable under law. iii. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zuari Investment in ITA No. 347/2016 dated 27/05/16: Held that…