Dep. Com. (Delhi), 92 TTJ 987 (5) Wipro Information Technology v. Dep. CIT (Bang)

88 TTJ 717Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#21548 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing Dep. Com. (Delhi), 92 TTJ 987 (5) Wipro Information Technology v. Dep. CIT (Bang)

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Astral Polytechnik Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal of Revenue

ITA 1966/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. & Shri BirenFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla,Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 250

…using Corp. Ltd. Vs. CIT 242 ITR 450 (iii) Maruti Udhyog Ltd. Vs. Dep. Comm. (Delhi) 92 TTJ 987 ITA No. 1966/Ahd/2018 & C.O. No. 85/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 (iv) Wipro Information Technology Vs. DCIT (Bang) 88 TTJ 378 (v) DCIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (Indore) 88 TTJ 717 (vi) Harish K. Bhatt Vs. ITO 85 TTJ 872 7.5 Before Ltd. CIT(A), the assessee repeated the same submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. The conclusion arrived at by Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below: “Considering the fact discussed herein above it is observed that Appellant has not earned any exempt income hence disallowance under Sectio…

Unison Metal Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 170/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr DR

Section 14A

…Mum) (SB) (3) Rajasthan State Warehousing Corp. Ltd. V/s. CIT, 242 ITR 450 (Raj.) (4) Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Dep. Com. (Delhi), 92 TTJ 987 (5) Wipro Information Technology Vs. Dep. CIT (Bang) 88 TTJ 378 (6) Dep. Comm. Of I.T. Vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (Indore) 88 TTJ 717. (7) Harish K. Bhatt Vs. ITO 85TTJ 872. In view of the above, disallowance u/s. 14A t.w.r 8D is worked out as under:- (A) Direct expenses - Rs. NIL/- (B) Disallowances out of interest - Rs. NIL/- (C) Half percent of average investment - 0.5% of 4,71,38,527/-. = Rs.2,35,692/- Disallowance u/s. 14A = A+B+C = Rs.2,35,692/- ITA Nos. 169 & 170/Ahd/2…

Unison Metal Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 169/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr DR

Section 14A

The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Chiripal Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2743/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Aparna Agarwal, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Nahata, A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…e laws. (1) Rajasthan State Warehousing Corp. Ltd V/s. CIT (242 ITR 450) (Raj.) (2) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Dep. Comm. (Delhi) 92 TTJ 987 (3) Wipro Information Technology Vs. Dep. GIT (Bang) 88 TTJ 378 (4) Dep. Comm. of I. Tax vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (Indore) 88 TTJ 717. (5) Harish K Bhatt vs. ITO 85 TTJ 872 v. It is also to benoted that the matter has been extensively covered and decided in favour of the Revenue in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.8057/Mum/03 for A.Y. 2001-02, by Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT (SB). It is also to be noted that S.14A disallows expenditure “in relation t…