Dhanuka & Sons. v. CIT

339 ITR 319High Court2011#1120 most cited

What is Dhanuka & Sons. v. CIT authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A for expenditure incurred to earn exempt dividend income (under Section 10(34)) is permissible. The assessee bears the burden to show the source of funds for acquiring shares, regardless of whether those shares are old or recently acquired.

100

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dhanuka & Sons v. CIT · Section 14A disallowance · exempt income · dividend income · Section 10(34) · expenditure for exempt income · burden of proof acquisition shares · source of funds shares · old shares immaterial

Also reported as

12 Taxmann.com 227201 Taxmann 105244 CTR 511

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 43ASection 80G

Issues it is cited on

section 41(4)section 194a(1)section 36(1)(viii)depreciation on goodwillsection 36(1)(viia)section 36(2)section 14a(2)section 36(1)(vii)block of assetssection 41section 194abook profits

Judgments citing Dhanuka & Sons. v. CIT

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

…to be made in respect of earning of exempt income u/s. 10(34) of the Income Tax Act and accordingly is not satisfactory in accordance with the provision of 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons Vs CIT (339 ITR 319), disallowance under section 14A can indeed be made. In Dhanuka's case (supra), Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: "In the case before us, there is no dispute that part of the income of the assessee from its business is from dividend which is exempt from tax whereas the assessee was unable to produce any material before the au…

CENTURY COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1324/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1324/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Century Commotrade Pvt. Limited,.……..…Appellant 10B, Sikdar Para Street, Jorasanko, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aabcc0694E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-9(3), Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Nikhil Sharme, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA No. 1324/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Century Commotrade Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 1324/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Century Commotrade Pvt. Limited,.……..…Appellant 10B, Sikdar Para Street, Jorasanko, Kolkata-700007 [PAN:AABCC0694E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-9(3), Kolkata Appearances by: Shri Nikhil Sharme, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: December 08, 2025 Date of pron…

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRLE-8, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

ITA 254/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…This decision follows the judgment of the hon'ble Bombay high court (which is also the concerned jurisdictional high court) in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs A CIT, 328 ITR 81 and that of hon'ble Calcutta high court in Dhanuka & Sons vs CIT, 339 ITR 319. Not only this, the hon'ble Third Member also refers to the case law CC! Ltd.(supra) and expresses a view that the aforesaid decisions of other hon'ble high courts were not brought to the notice of the Karnataka high court. In these circumstances, the picture that emerges is that various high courts have expressed divergent opinions on this legal…

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRLE-8, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

ITA 253/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…This decision follows the judgment of the hon'ble Bombay high court (which is also the concerned jurisdictional high court) in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs A CIT, 328 ITR 81 and that of hon'ble Calcutta high court in Dhanuka & Sons vs CIT, 339 ITR 319. Not only this, the hon'ble Third Member also refers to the case law CC! Ltd.(supra) and expresses a view that the aforesaid decisions of other hon'ble high courts were not brought to the notice of the Karnataka high court. In these circumstances, the picture that emerges is that various high courts have expressed divergent opinions on this legal…

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU(2), CHENNAI

Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 203/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.661/Chny/2019, 202 & 203/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-2018) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Ltu (2) Chennai. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.914/Chny/2019, 253 & 254/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17&2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Ltu (2) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…This decision follows the judgment of the hon’ble Bombay high court (which is also the concerned jurisdictional high court) in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs A CIT, 328 ITR 81 and that of hon’ble Calcutta high court in Dhanuka & Sons vs CIT, 339 ITR 319. Not only this, the hon’ble Third Member also refers to the case law CC! Ltd.(supra) and expresses a view that the aforesaid decisions of other hon’ble high courts were not brought to the notice of the Karnataka high court. In these circumstances, the picture that emerges is that various high courts have expressed divergent opinions on this legal…

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU(2), CHENNAI

ITA 202/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…This decision follows the judgment of the hon'ble Bombay high court (which is also the concerned jurisdictional high court) in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs A CIT, 328 ITR 81 and that of hon'ble Calcutta high court in Dhanuka & Sons vs CIT, 339 ITR 319. Not only this, the hon'ble Third Member also refers to the case law CC! Ltd.(supra) and expresses a view that the aforesaid decisions of other hon'ble high courts were not brought to the notice of the Karnataka high court. In these circumstances, the picture that emerges is that various high courts have expressed divergent opinions on this legal…

ACIT LTU-2, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

ITA 914/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…This decision follows the judgment of the hon'ble Bombay high court (which is also the concerned jurisdictional high court) in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs A CIT, 328 ITR 81 and that of hon'ble Calcutta high court in Dhanuka & Sons vs CIT, 339 ITR 319. Not only this, the hon'ble Third Member also refers to the case law CC! Ltd.(supra) and expresses a view that the aforesaid decisions of other hon'ble high courts were not brought to the notice of the Karnataka high court. In these circumstances, the picture that emerges is that various high courts have expressed divergent opinions on this legal…

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

ITA 661/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…This decision follows the judgment of the hon'ble Bombay high court (which is also the concerned jurisdictional high court) in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs A CIT, 328 ITR 81 and that of hon'ble Calcutta high court in Dhanuka & Sons vs CIT, 339 ITR 319. Not only this, the hon'ble Third Member also refers to the case law CC! Ltd.(supra) and expresses a view that the aforesaid decisions of other hon'ble high courts were not brought to the notice of the Karnataka high court. In these circumstances, the picture that emerges is that various high courts have expressed divergent opinions on this legal…

GODREJ PROPERTIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14 (1) (2), MUMBAI

ITA 2994/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Yasmin DasturFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Page 1 ITA No.2994 & 3002/Mum/2023 Godrej Properties Ltd Vs. The DCIT, Circle 14(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2994/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ. 2015-16) Godrej Properties Ltd. M/s Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP, Esplanade House, 2nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, For, Mumbai – 400001 Vs. The DCIT, Circle 14(1)(2) Room No. 455, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACG3995M Appellant Respondent ITA No.3002/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2015-16) ACIT-14(1)(2) Room No. 4…

ANUPRIYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 631/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय गगग, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 631/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anupriya Consultants Pvt. Ltd...…...........................Appellant [PAN: AACCA 1781 B] Vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1) Kolkata......................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Sh. Ravi Tulsiyan, A/R. Department represented by: Sh. Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT. Date…

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5629/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 5629 & 5630/Mum/2014 (A.Y: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit, Central Circle-10 Vs. M/S. Keystone Realtors Room No. 802, 8Th Pvt Ltd., Floor, Old Cgo Annexe Natraj, Mv Road, Bldg, Mk Road, Junction, We Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack2499Q Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…lable and investments made there from and considering the fact that no such material evidence is produced by the assessee, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was correct, as was held by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Dhanuka & Sons (339 ITR 319) (2011). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business as builders and developers. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act conducted in the course of Rustomjee Evershine Group on 21.10.2010 and the assessee also was covered under search action, therefore notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…ll as subsidiary companies. Considering the above, the AO has seen that the assessee company is liable for disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act. 4.7 The AO further observed that it also is essential to draw reference to case of Dhanuka & Sons Vs. CIT (339 ITR 319 (Cal) ) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the assessee is not able to show that the investment in shares are out of internal accounts or non-interest bearing funds, disallowance u/s.14A IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore Page 7 of 85 can be made. Reliance was also placed by the AO on the cases of Cheminvest L…

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…ll as subsidiary companies. Considering the above, the AO has seen that the assessee company is liable for disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act. 4.7 The AO further observed that it also is essential to draw reference to case of Dhanuka & Sons Vs. CIT (339 ITR 319 (Cal) ) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the assessee is not able to show that the investment in shares are out of internal accounts or non-interest bearing funds, disallowance u/s.14A IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore Page 7 of 85 can be made. Reliance was also placed by the AO on the cases of Cheminvest L…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 973/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R., Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

…paying interest on borrowings and the assessee is not able to show that investment in shares are out of internal accruals or non-interest bearing funds, and in the light of by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decision x in the case of Dhanuka & Sons v. CIT [2011] 339 ITR 319/201 Taxman 105/12 taxmann.com 227 (Cal.) (Mag.), disallowance under section 14 A can indeed be made. In Dhanuka & Sons' case (supra), Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: 9. In the case before us, there is no dispute that part of the income of the assessee from its business is from dividend which is exempt from tax whereas the…

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 37

…the following: “The Revenue has once again come up in appeal before us. Mr. Bhowmick, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant /Revenue drew our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 339 ITR 319. Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the judgment in the case of Dhanuka & Sons has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case, the assessee was unable to produce any material before the authorities showing the source from which the shares were acquired. He contende…

M/S. SRF LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the appellant assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2064/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 37Section 9C

…f shares and sources thereof by producing books of accounts and other documentary evidence as the appellant has invested in shares out of the common pool of fund and in turn relied on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Dhanuka & Sons v. CIT [2011] 339 ITR 319 (Cal). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D made by the assessing officer, however granted partial relief by excluding other finance charges of Rs.673.02 Lakhs and imputing correct figure of investments and assets. The CIT (A) reduced disallowance from Rs.45,69,828/- to Rs.39,55,351/-. 9. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the as…

RATNABALI CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD., [EARLIER KNOWN AS RATNABALI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,],KOLKATA vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 356/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate &Sweta Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n and under the head income from capital gain and also earned interest on debentures.During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D holding as follows: “3.4.9 The decision in the case of Dhanuka & Sons vs CIT, 339 ITR 319(CAL) is in the favour of revenue on the issue. The decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81(BOM.)has upheld the constitutional validity of section 14A. The recent decision of ITAT, Mumbai 'D' Bench in case of Dy. CIT vs Damani Estates & Finance Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 3029/M…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasoi Ltd (ITA No. 109 of 2016) dated 15.02.2017 appeared to be very relevant. In this judgment the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court had benefit of considering the earlier judgment of the same Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons (339 ITR 319) as also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529). In the case of Rasoi Ltd (supra), the High Court found that assessee's own funds were higher than the investments in tax free securities and in that view of the matter, the interest disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) which was deleted by…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasoi Ltd (ITA No. 109 of 2016) dated 15.02.2017 appeared to be very relevant. In this judgment the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court had benefit of considering the earlier judgment of the same Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons (339 ITR 319) as also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529). In the case of Rasoi Ltd (supra), the High Court found that assessee's own funds were higher than the investments in tax free securities and in that view of the matter, the interest disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) which was deleted by…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 217/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasoi Ltd (ITA No. 109 of 2016) dated 15.02.2017 appeared to be very relevant. In this judgment the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court had benefit of considering the earlier judgment of the same Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons (339 ITR 319) as also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529). In the case of Rasoi Ltd (supra), the High Court found that assessee's own funds were higher than the investments in tax free securities and in that view of the matter, the interest disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) which was deleted by…

Showing 1–20 of 100 · Page 1 of 5