Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

155 ITR 120Supreme Court of India1985#386 most cited

What is Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

For computing the deduction under Section 80M, only the net dividend income (gross dividend income after reducing expenses attributable to earning it, as per Section 57(iii) and the principle in Section 80AB) is eligible. The case also holds that tax authorities are not bound to perpetuate an error from a previous assessment year, as each year is a separate unit and consistency cannot override substantive justice.

229

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India · 155 ITR 120 · Section 80M deduction · net dividend income · expenses attributable to dividend · Section 80AB · Section 57(iii) · consistency principle · perpetuate error · assessment year separate unit · judicial conscience · dividend income

Also reported as

1 SCC 4347 CTR 349

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153DSection 1961Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 50(1)section 80absection 80msection 243section 54esection 10(33)section 10(15)section 245hacasus omissussection 14a(1)section 54ec

Judgments citing Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Dalmia Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ( in ITA no

ITA 2078/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1937/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Sarat Bose Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd1813G (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2078/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Vs. Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – Sarat Bose Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd 1813 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By :Shri Sallongyaden, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata In Appeal No.499/Cit(A)-18/11-12/Cir- 12(1)/Kol, Dated 08.08.2016, Which Is Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961,(Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 21.02.2014. 2. These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Identical

For Appellant: Shri Asim Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SallongYaden, ACIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s out of the loans and advances taken? Besides assessee has not provided details which would conclusively establish one to one correspondence between assessee's own fund and the funds invested in shares. In the case of Distributors [Baroda] Pvt. Ltd. -vs- UOI 155 ITR 120, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that some administrative expenses are definitely involved in earning dividend. This judgement was followed by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-vs-MaganlalChaganlal Pvt. Ltd., 236 ITR 456. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that under the circumstances assessee's submission that no cost was involved in making invest…

Dalmia Securities Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ( in ITA no

ITA 1937/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1937/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Sarat Bose Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd1813G (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2078/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Vs. Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – Sarat Bose Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd 1813 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By :Shri Sallongyaden, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata In Appeal No.499/Cit(A)-18/11-12/Cir- 12(1)/Kol, Dated 08.08.2016, Which Is Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961,(Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 21.02.2014. 2. These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Identical

For Appellant: Shri Asim Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SallongYaden, ACIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s out of the loans and advances taken? Besides assessee has not provided details which would conclusively establish one to one correspondence between assessee's own fund and the funds invested in shares. In the case of Distributors [Baroda] Pvt. Ltd. -vs- UOI 155 ITR 120, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that some administrative expenses are definitely involved in earning dividend. This judgement was followed by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-vs-MaganlalChaganlal Pvt. Ltd., 236 ITR 456. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that under the circumstances assessee's submission that no cost was involved in making invest…

M/S. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 789/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43(1)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

…w. A previous Division Bench of this Court, in Rohitasava Chand v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 242/ 171 Taxman 147 had held that the rule of consistency cannot be of inflexible application. Hon'ble Apex Court in Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120/22 Taxman 49 (SC) has held that to perpetuate an error is no heroism and to rectify it is the compulsion of the judicial conscience. In case of CIT v. Excel Industries 358 ITR 295 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when the Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and did not pursue the matter any further, it cannot…

Sh. Braham Dev Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2102/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…no addition could be made u/s 14A is in direct confrontation of following two ratios laid down by Hon'ble SC. i) Rajendra Prasad Moody Vs CIT [1978] 115 ITR 00519(SC) and Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1985] 22 ii) Taxman 49 (SC) [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC). 7.6 It is against basic logic that by making expenditure income may or may not be there. 14 Assessment year: 2011-12 8. Having the fact of surrender of Rs.18 Cr during survey, loss in trading account on record, statement during survey that the assessee is also dealing in diamonds but having no separate trading and P&L account, coupled wit…

Patanjali Yogpeeth (Nyas), Delhi vs. ADIT(Exemption), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2267/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13Section 142Section 2(15)

…ngham Vs. DIT (E) (2014) 43 Taxman.com 192 (AP); (xiii) Shri Dhakad Samaj Dharamshala Bhawan Trust Vs. CIT (2008) 302 ITR 321 (MP); (xiv) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); (xv) Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC). 7.7 The ld. CIT [DR] submitted that the principle of res judicata is not applicable in the provisions of Income Tax Act and hence acceptance of the returns of income for earlier two years in the case of assessee does not give any right of similar acceptance to the assessee for the year under consideration. He submitted that due to insertio…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is also partly allowed

ITA 2421/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () I.T.A. No.2421/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 4

…urring of interest income in relation to earning of exempt income cannot be ruled out. These are valid inferences based on the facts of the case. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions/ judgments. 1. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (155 ITR 120) (SC) 11. Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd. (236 ITR 456) (Born) 11.3 The submission of the assessee company that no effort was required for maintaining the investment is not born out of the records. The investments made by the assessee have gone up during the year. The assessee had debited huge expenditure in the Profit & Loss account like intere…

DCIT OSD 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Saraswat Co-Op Bank P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result all the six appeals i

ITA 8622/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8622/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Deputy Commissioner Of The Saraswat Co-Operative बनाम/ Income Tax(Osd),1(1) Bank Limited V. Room No. 540/564, 5 T H Floor Madhushree, Plot No. 85 Aayakar Bhawan, M K Road District Navi Mumbai- New Marine Lines 400 703 Mumbai-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact5543L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 14A

…Rs 10 crores made by the assessee in subsidiary company Saraswat Infotech Limited, which is capable of yielding exempt income. The ld DR relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Private Limited v.UOI reported in (1985) 155 ITR 120(SC). The ld counsel for the assessee on the other hand relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Limited v. Addl. CIT in ITA no. 5408/Mum/2012 dated 15-01-2014, EIH Associates Hotels Limited v. DCIT in ITA no. 1503/Mds./2012, Interglobe Enterprises Limited v. DCIT in ITA no. 1580/Del/2013 and J M Financial Limited…

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata vs. M/S Integrated Coal Mining Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1758/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 14ASection 43B

…spend the taxpayers’ money in purusing litigation for the sake of it. 5.3.3. We are also reminded of the observations of Hon’ble Justice P.N. Bhagwati while rendering the judgement in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P Ltd vs Union of India & Ors reported in 155 ITR 120 (SC) – larger bench decision as below:- “To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify the same is the compulsion of judicial conscience.” In the facts of the instant case, the assessee had commenced its operations from Asst Year 2003-04 and in the very first year, this issue was taken up for disallowance and the same was deleted by the Learne…

The Nagarbail Salt-Owners vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

RP/100038/2016HC Karnataka06 Sept 2016

Bench: H.BILLAPPA,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 114Section 260Section 260A(5)

…ordships to follow the wrong path until you fall over the edge of the cliff.” 10. We also would like to extract another passage by P.N.Bhagawati J. (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) referred by Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati and the same reads as follows: “It is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly. But there may be circumstances, where the public interests demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decisis sho…

Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Raniganj vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Asansol

In the result, ITA No.1983/Kol/2014 is partly allowed while ITA

ITA 1983/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & Jcit Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (Pan:Aaffr 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri U.Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 6

…. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s Gherzi Eastern Limited (ITA No. 6562/Bom/94 dated 23/09/2002). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon;ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (155 ITR 120) and Bombay High Court in the case of Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd. (236 ITR 456), which has expressed a similar view, that expenditure may be attributable to earning of dividend income.” 6. The CIT(A) however confirmed the order of the AO by observing that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act can be made even if there is no exempt income and that i…

DCIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mecano (I) Pltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4620/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

Section 10ASection 10BSection 70Section 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, Assessment Year:2011-12 DCIT-10(3)(2), M/s Phoenix Mecano (I) Pvt. Room No.217, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 306, Marol Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400020 Andhri (East), Mumbai राज"व / Revenue "नधा"रती / Assessee P.A. No.AAACP2452L Shri Sharad A. Shah "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Ajay Pratap Singh-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 03/08/2016 12/08/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /D…

Sonphankhi Shares & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee company appeal in ITA No 7068/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 7068/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Dr. Suman Ratnam Darsi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 73

…ion and cannot be left to a junior clerk. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United General Trust Ltd. (supra), applying the decision oi Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349: (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC), reversed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. United General Trust (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein the question was as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in applying the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. New Great Insurance Co. Ltd. (1…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 4442/MUM/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4442/Mum/2010 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit - Range 2(2) Room No. 577, 5Th Floor L&T House, N.M. Marg Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aaacl0140P Mumbai-400020 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4599/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 वष" Dcit - Range 2(2) M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Mumbai-400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Mukund Chate Assessee By: Shri J.D. Mistry सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.26.03.20130Of The Cit(A)-5,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Manufacturing Of Heavy Machinery & Cement, Etc., Filed It Return Of Income On,27.11.1998,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.20 Crores.The Ao Complet -Ed The Assessment,On 28.02.2001, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,09,15,37,490/-.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Mukund Chate
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(9)

…from tax free bonds and for dividend receipts at Rs.19.79 crores. The AO observed that income itself was exempt therefore expenditure relating to such income had to be 4442/M/10 & 4599/M/13-L&T disallowed. He referred to the case of Distributors Baroda Ltd. (155 ITR 120) and the circular No. 780 dated 04.10.1988 issued by the CBDT. He directed the assessee to filed explanation in this regard.After considering the submissions of assessee firm dated 13.02. 2010, the AO stated that there was no case of indivisible business, that the business of the assessee consisted of multifarious activities, that making of inves…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…amount of dividend received by the assessee.” d) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd. [(2012) 343 ITR 89] followed the ratio of Hon’ble constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda)(P) Ltd [(1985) 155 ITR 120] while adjudicating the issue of netting of interest for consideration u/s. 80HHC of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Asian Star Co. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 56 and overruled CIT V/s. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (2010) 192 Taxaman 435. At para 11 of that order Hon’ble Apex Cour…

Saurashtra Fuels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 7273/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra(D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80M

…towards earning of this dividend income and that had to be deducted while allowing deduction u/s 80M of the Act. The reliance was also placed by the AO on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors(Baroda) Private Limited v. UOI ((1985) 155 ITR 120(SC)) and Bombay High Court in the case of Magganlal Chagganlal Private Limited ((1999) 236 ITR 456 (Bom.)) whereby it has been held that expenditure may be attributable to dividend income. The AO also relied upon the decision of Special Bench , ITAT , Mumbai in the case of Daga Capital Management Private Limited (2008) 312 ITR (AT)1(Mum) to hold…

ADIT(OSD)(E), New Delhi vs. Bird Education Society for Travel & Tourism, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2131/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Roy Singh, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…gned order. A perusal of the same shows that apart from relying upon the decisions cited in the assessment order reliance was further placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors Baroda (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC). The reference thereto is relevant in view of the facts that the assessee before the CIT(A) relying upon the assessment order itself has submitted that the registration granted to the assessee till date has not been withdrawn. The assessee it is seen is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 vide Registration…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…f term ‘total income’. ‘Total income’ has been defined to mean total ‘income before making any deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and Chapter VIA. 8.6 The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India (155 ITR 120), in the context of interpreting the provisions of sec.80M held that deduction u/s 80M has to be calculated with reference to the amount of dividend income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. While coming to such conclusion, Hon’ble Apex Court taken note of its earlier decision in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industry Co.…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…f term ‘total income’. ‘Total income’ has been defined to mean total ‘income before making any deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and Chapter VIA. 8.6 The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India (155 ITR 120), in the context of interpreting the provisions of sec.80M held that deduction u/s 80M has to be calculated with reference to the amount of dividend income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. While coming to such conclusion, Hon’ble Apex Court taken note of its earlier decision in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industry Co.…

Addl.Ci.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…f term ‘total income’. ‘Total income’ has been defined to mean total ‘income before making any deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and Chapter VIA. 8.6 The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India (155 ITR 120), in the context of interpreting the provisions of sec.80M held that deduction u/s 80M has to be calculated with reference to the amount of dividend income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. While coming to such conclusion, Hon’ble Apex Court taken note of its earlier decision in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industry Co.…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…f term ‘total income’. ‘Total income’ has been defined to mean total ‘income before making any deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and Chapter VIA. 8.6 The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India (155 ITR 120), in the context of interpreting the provisions of sec.80M held that deduction u/s 80M has to be calculated with reference to the amount of dividend income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. While coming to such conclusion, Hon’ble Apex Court taken note of its earlier decision in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industry Co.…