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.

How many judgments cite Dhanuka & Sons. v. CIT?

100 judgments on BharatTax cite Dhanuka & Sons. v. CIT (339 ITR 319), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dhanuka & Sons. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 37.

Dhanuka & Sons. v. CIT (339 ITR 319)

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10

ITA 1535/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1533-1536/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri -Vs- M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccg 0424 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…urred for earning tax free income in cases where assessee do not maintain separate accounts for the investment and other expenditure incurred for earning tax free income. (c ) Reliance is placed on the ratio of judgment in the case of Dhanuka & Sons vs. CIT [244 CTR 511 (Cal)]/ (d) Chem Invest Ltd. vs. ITO, ITAT No. 87/Del/2008, (2009) 317 ITR (At 86 (Delhi) (SB): It was held there is dividend income or not interest paid for on borrowing for trading in shares cannot be allowed. (e) DCIT vs. Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata ‘B’ (Third Member) (2012) 146 TTJ (Kol)(TM) 175. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additio…

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10

ITA 1534/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1533-1536/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri -Vs- M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccg 0424 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…urred for earning tax free income in cases where assessee do not maintain separate accounts for the investment and other expenditure incurred for earning tax free income. (c ) Reliance is placed on the ratio of judgment in the case of Dhanuka & Sons vs. CIT [244 CTR 511 (Cal)]/ (d) Chem Invest Ltd. vs. ITO, ITAT No. 87/Del/2008, (2009) 317 ITR (At 86 (Delhi) (SB): It was held there is dividend income or not interest paid for on borrowing for trading in shares cannot be allowed. (e) DCIT vs. Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata ‘B’ (Third Member) (2012) 146 TTJ (Kol)(TM) 175. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additio…

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10

ITA 1533/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1533-1536/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri -Vs- M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccg 0424 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…urred for earning tax free income in cases where assessee do not maintain separate accounts for the investment and other expenditure incurred for earning tax free income. (c ) Reliance is placed on the ratio of judgment in the case of Dhanuka & Sons vs. CIT [244 CTR 511 (Cal)]/ (d) Chem Invest Ltd. vs. ITO, ITAT No. 87/Del/2008, (2009) 317 ITR (At 86 (Delhi) (SB): It was held there is dividend income or not interest paid for on borrowing for trading in shares cannot be allowed. (e) DCIT vs. Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata ‘B’ (Third Member) (2012) 146 TTJ (Kol)(TM) 175. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additio…

Megatherm Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, RG-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1376/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1376/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Megatherm Electronics Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Range-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aaccm 0633 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Ganatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nds of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 4,10,66,325/-. He argued that since the entire borrowed funds have been repaid by the assessee within a short span of time, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons reported in 339 ITR 319 (Cal), would come to the rescue of the assessee. In respect of other investment made in subsidiary company on 28.01.2005 amounting to Rs 25,50,000/-, he argued that the same was made only out of own funds which is evident from the bank statement of cash credit account. In view of these arguments he stated that no disallowances need to be made on…

ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata vs. Smt Madhu Devi Saraf, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1131/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…in the immediate preceding assessment year 2010-11. However, on perusal of this Tribunal’s order we observe that no reference was made to the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Dhanuka & Sons vs. CIT in ITA No.633 (Cal)(2004) reported in 339 ITR 319 wherein it was held as under:- "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 assessee was unable to produce any material before the authorities below showing the source from which such shares were acquired. ITA No.1131/Kol/2015 A.Y. 20…

DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata vs. Sri Rikhab Chand Jain, Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1129/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1129/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Cir-36, Kolkata Vs. Sri Rikhab Chand Jain Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, C/O M/S T T Ltd., 2 Nd Floor, 10, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Ezzie Mansion, Pollock Street, 2 Nd Floor, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeypj 0493 A (Revenue) .. (Assessee) Co No.47/Kol/2015 (A/O Ita No.1129/Kol/2015) ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sri Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Dcit, Cir-36, Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, C/O M/S T T Ltd., 2 N D Floor, 10, Ezzie Mansion, Pollock Street, 2 Nd Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Floor, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeypj 0493 A (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: ShriSallongYaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: ShriS.M. Surana, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…or years and interest was still being paid on those loans. Hence, there is an expenditure on those shares which mayor shall yield dividend income which is exempt. The same has been held in the case of Dhanuka & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1 [339 ITR 319 (Cal.)] . The AO further observed that Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies for all investments, the income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income. Hence, even if the shares have not yielded dividend during the assessment year in question, they are capable of yielding dividend. And hence, any expenditure on such investmen…

Triway Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 932/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.932/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Triway Forwarders Pvt. Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of No.14, Jaffer Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Company Circle Iii(2) Chennai 600 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Palanichamy, IRS, JCIT

Section 14A

…x (2014) (49 taxmann.com 100) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited and others (2012) (344 ITR 0259) as well as the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Dhanuka and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2011) (12 Taxmann.com 227) in all of which the assessee did, as a matter of fact, earn dividend income. The aforesaid decisions are thus factually distinguishable and do not advance this proposition of the revenue. 13. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Beach Minerals Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of…

Auto Shell Cast Pvt Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.931/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014

For Respondent: Shri M. Palanichamy, JCIT

Section 14ASection 43B

…x (2014) (49 taxmann.com 100) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited and others (2012) (344 ITR 0259) as well as the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Dhanuka and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2011) (12 Taxmann.com 227) in all of which the assessee did, as a matter of fact, earn dividend income. The aforesaid decisions are thus factually distinguishable and do not advance this proposition of the revenue. 13. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Beach Minerals Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of…

DCIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Prachar Communication Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2262/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2262/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Pracher Communication Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5657 L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, AR

Section 143(3)Section 32

…We have heard the rival submissions. We find on perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee, sufficient own funds are available with the assessee for making investments. However, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons reported in 339 ITR 319( Cal) had held that it is for the assessee to prove the fact as to whether the investments were made out of own funds or borrowed funds in the relevant years of making investments. Hence we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this aspect for verification to the file of the ld AO. The assessee is also directed to produce requisite evidences in t…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Machino Techno Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1317/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1317/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Machino Techno Sales Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccm 2561 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 55/Kol/2015 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1317/Kol/2015) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Machino Techno Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaccm 2561 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. Cit Dr For The Respondent : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2017

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…thereon as under:- Under Rule 8D(2)(ii) 28,25,249/- Under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 5,09,555/- ---------------- 33,34,804/- This was made after placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons vs CIT reported in 339 ITR 319 (Cal) that the 2 3 M/s Machino Techno Sales Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 assessee had not proved the fact whether the investments were made out of own funds or borrowed funds in the relevant year and hence the proportionate interest thereon would be liable for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules in the sum of Rs 28,25,249/-. The ld AO also…

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Keventer Agro Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2768/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 40(1)(a)Section 41(1)

…ce Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) as discussed above. ITA No.2768/Kol/2013 & 2576/Kol/2013 M/s. Keventer Agro Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 11 However we find form the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka & sons reported in 339 ITR 319 that it is the duty of the assessee to produce the source of the investment. The relevant extract reads as under : “It was for the assessee to show the source of acquisition of those shares by production of materials that those shares were acquired from the funds available in the hands of the assessee at the relevant point of time without taking…

M/S Keventer Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl.C.I.T., Range-4, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2576/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 40(1)(a)Section 41(1)

…ce Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) as discussed above. ITA No.2768/Kol/2013 & 2576/Kol/2013 M/s. Keventer Agro Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 11 However we find form the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka & sons reported in 339 ITR 319 that it is the duty of the assessee to produce the source of the investment. The relevant extract reads as under : “It was for the assessee to show the source of acquisition of those shares by production of materials that those shares were acquired from the funds available in the hands of the assessee at the relevant point of time without taking…

DCIT, Central Cir. VI, Kolkata vs. M/S J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 611/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury, Judicial Member ITA No.609-612/Kol/2013 Assessment Years:2007-08 to 2010-11 DCIT, Central Circle-VI M/s J.K. Lakshmi Cement बनाम / 3rd Floor, Aayakar Ltd.,7, Council House V/s. Bhawan Poorva, E.M. Street, Kolkata-01 Bye Pass, 110, Shanti [PAN No.AAACJ 6715 G] Pally, Kolkata-107 .. ""यथ" /Respondent C.O. No.47/Kol/2013 (a/o ITA No.612/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s J.K. Lakshmi DCIT, Central Circle-VI, बनाम / 3rd, Floor, Aayakar Cement Ltd.,7, Council V/s. House…

Jaswant J Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2599/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 127Section 127(3)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…and evidences that the interest bearing funds have been utilized wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning taxable income and that no part thereof has been diverted for making investments yielding tax free income. In the case of Dhanuka & Sons v. CIT 339 ITR 319 (Cal), it has been held that the object of Section 14A is to disallow the direct and indirect expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. The onus is on the assessee to produce material before the AO. showing the source from which shares were acquired. It is for the assessee to show that shares were ac…

Jaswant J Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2598/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 127Section 127(3)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…and evidences that the interest bearing funds have been utilized wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning taxable income and that no part thereof has been diverted for making investments yielding tax free income. In the case of Dhanuka & Sons v. CIT 339 ITR 319 (Cal), it has been held that the object of Section 14A is to disallow the direct and indirect expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. The onus is on the assessee to produce material before the AO. showing the source from which shares were acquired. It is for the assessee to show that shares were ac…

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Rossell India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2774/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata V/S. M/S Rossell India Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 21/1A/3, Darga Road, Square, Kolkata-69 Jindal Towers, Block B, 4Th Floor, Park Circus, Kolkta-700 017 [Pan Noaabcr 3736 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…how the appellant's method of calculation of disallowance u/s 14A is incorrect. 4.3 Having considered the above fact, during the course of appellate proceed the appellant in the light of the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka Sons Vs. CIT 339 ITR 319 was called upon to substantiate with evidence that the investment made during the year were out of owned funds and not loan funds. 4.4 The appellant has submitted detail reply in support of the same vide submission dated 07-08-2013. It is observed that the major investment made during the year was substantially funded out of proceeds of preferen…

Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Limited, North 24 Parganas vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he lower authorities and argued that the provisions of Rule 8D are to be mandatorily complied with from Asst Year 2008-09 and onwards. The ld DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons reported in 339 ITR 319 (Cal) wherein it was held that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the investments were made out of own funds even though the investments were made in the earlier years. 3.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons reported in 339 ITR 319 (Cal) had categorically…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he lower authorities and argued that the provisions of Rule 8D are to be mandatorily complied with from Asst Year 2008-09 and onwards. The ld DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons reported in 339 ITR 319 (Cal) wherein it was held that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the investments were made out of own funds even though the investments were made in the earlier years. 3.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons reported in 339 ITR 319 (Cal) had categorically…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindustan Gums & Chemical Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 752/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. & Sanjay Bhaumik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…unal in the case of REI Agro Ltd vs DCIT reported in 36 CCH 360 (Kol). In response to this, the ld DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., AY 2008-09 High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons reported in 339 ITR 319 (Cal) wherein it was held that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the investments were made out of own funds even though the investments were made in the earlier years. 3.4. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons supra had categorically held that even though th…

Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata

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

ITA 462/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. & Sanjay Bhaumik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…unal in the case of REI Agro Ltd vs DCIT reported in 36 CCH 360 (Kol). In response to this, the ld DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., AY 2008-09 High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons reported in 339 ITR 319 (Cal) wherein it was held that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the investments were made out of own funds even though the investments were made in the earlier years. 3.4. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons supra had categorically held that even though th…

Dhanuka & Sons. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Dhanuka & Sons. v. CIT

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

Megatherm Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, RG-2, Kolkata

ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata vs. Smt Madhu Devi Saraf, Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata vs. Sri Rikhab Chand Jain, Kolkata

Triway Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Auto Shell Cast Pvt Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

DCIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Prachar Communication Ltd., Howrah

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Machino Techno Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Keventer Agro Ltd., Kolkata

M/S Keventer Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl.C.I.T., Range-4, Kolkata

DCIT, Central Cir. VI, Kolkata vs. M/S J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd., Kolkata

Jaswant J Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

Jaswant J Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Rossell India Ltd., Kolkata

Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Limited, North 24 Parganas vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindustan Gums & Chemical Ltd., Kolkata

Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata