Coforge Limited v. ACIT

436 ITR 546High Court2021#3830 most cited

What is Coforge Limited v. ACIT authority for?

A one-time payment of lease rent, even if commuted and discounted over a long period like 90 years, is revenue in nature and therefore an allowable business expenditure. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Coforge Limited v. ACIT · 436 ITR 546 · 128 Taxmann.com 99 · lease rent · revenue expenditure · Section 14A · Rule 8D · satisfaction of AO · disallowance

Also reported as

128 Taxmann.com 99

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 194CSection 194ISection 32Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 36(1)(viii)management feessection 194ishort deduction of taxinfrastructure facilitymultiple year datasection 41(1)eligible businessbeneficial ownersection 41stay petition

Judgments citing Coforge Limited v. ACIT

Hari Kishan Rathi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 2566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 2566 to 2573 & 2910 to 2917/Del/2024 Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2566 to 2573/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19) Indian Renewable Energy Vs. DCIT, Circle 10(1) Development Agency Ltd. C.R. Building 3rd Floor, August New Delhi – 110095 KrantiBhawan, BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi - 110066 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAACH384C Appellant .. Respondent ITA Nos. 2910 to 2917/Del/2024…

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3579/MUM/2024[AY 2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM I.T.A. No.3579/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sapphire Foods India Vs DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Limited . Mumbai. 7th Floor, A Wing, Prism Tower, Link Road, Mind Space, Goregaon, West Maharashtra. PAN:[AANCS5595A] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Ms. Aarti Sathe, & Ms. Assavari Kadam, AR Respondent by Ms. Pradhanya Golap, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 03.12.2024 Date of 13.01.2025 Pronouncement ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: Present appeal is filed by the assessee is against order dated 29/06/2024 passed by NFAC, De…

Paramount Products Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2369/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2369/DEL/2022 [A.Y. 2018-19] Paramount Products Pvt Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. A-55, Okhla Industrial Area Circle -19 (1) Phase – 2, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACP 1213 B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Bhalla, CA Department By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2024 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated…

Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5835/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.5834 & 5835/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. JBM Auto Ltd., Vs. ACIT/DCIT 601, Hemkunt Chambers, Circle-13(2), 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACJ9630N (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA Nos.5020 & 5021/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DCIT, Vs. M/s. JBM Auto Ltd., Circle-13(2), 601, Hemkunt Chambers, New Delhi 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACJ9630N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate…

Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5834/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.5834 & 5835/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. JBM Auto Ltd., Vs. ACIT/DCIT 601, Hemkunt Chambers, Circle-13(2), 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACJ9630N (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA Nos.5020 & 5021/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DCIT, Vs. M/s. JBM Auto Ltd., Circle-13(2), 601, Hemkunt Chambers, New Delhi 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACJ9630N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate…

DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi vs. Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5021/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: learned first appellate authority. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned first appellate authority granted partial relief to the assessee by deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.4,23,24,958/- made under Rule 8D(2)(ii). However, she upheld the disallowance of Rs.35,66,390/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii).

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.5834 & 5835/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. JBM Auto Ltd., Vs. ACIT/DCIT 601, Hemkunt Chambers, Circle-13(2), 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACJ9630N (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA Nos.5020 & 5021/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DCIT, Vs. M/s. JBM Auto Ltd., Circle-13(2), 601, Hemkunt Chambers, New Delhi 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACJ9630N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate…

DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi vs. Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5020/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: learned first appellate authority. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned first appellate authority granted partial relief to the assessee by deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.4,23,24,958/- made under Rule 8D(2)(ii). However, she upheld the disallowance of Rs.35,66,390/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii).

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.5834 & 5835/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. JBM Auto Ltd., Vs. ACIT/DCIT 601, Hemkunt Chambers, Circle-13(2), 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACJ9630N (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA Nos.5020 & 5021/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DCIT, Vs. M/s. JBM Auto Ltd., Circle-13(2), 601, Hemkunt Chambers, New Delhi 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACJ9630N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate…

Indus Towers Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petition of the assessee is hereby dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1051/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 14ASection 251(2)

…o the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. The same view has also been reiterated in the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of H. T. Media Ltd. Vs. PCIT reported in 399 ITR 576 and Coforge Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 436 ITR 546. SA No. 386/Del/2023 Indus Towers Ltd. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the disallowance made by the ld. AO u/s 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs.62,28,97,678/- is bad in law. We have already held that the enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) in the sum…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…e plethora of judicial precedents wherein it has been held that rental charges paid under the lease period of 99 years are revenue in nature and hence are allowable expenditure. Recently the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Coforge Ltd. v. ACIT: [2021] 436 ITR 546, has held that the entire lease rent of 90 years paid by the Assessee as a commuted and discounted one-time lease rent instead of paying it on yearly basis is revenue in nature. 20. It is submitted that Expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Further, it is duly submitted that the said expenditure has been inc…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi -4 vs. Nestle India Ltd

ITA - 281 / 2023HC Delhi17 May 2023
Section 14A

…ncerned, Mr Maratha also concedes that this issue is covered by the judgments rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Court in HT Media Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax IV, New Delhi (2017) 399 ITR 576 (Delhi) and Coforge Ltd. vs. ACIT. (2021) 436 ITR 546 (Delhi). 4.1 Insofar as the judgment in HT Media is concerned, inter alia, it requires the AO, while dealing with the issue involving disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 [in short, “Rules”], to satisfy himself, inter alia, with regard to the amount offered for disallowance by the asse…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7578/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv., Sh.Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Sarita Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 254

…e of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd. vs DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC) and the judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC). Further, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Coforge Ltd. vs ACIT 436 ITR 546 (Del.) & H.T.Media Ltd. vs PCIT 399 ITR 576 (Del.) in support of contention that if the satisfaction is not recorded, no disallowance can be sustained. He further submitted that the issue even otherwise is also covered by the decision of the Tribunal and the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court pertaining to Assessment Year 2005-06 in assessee…