Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT

398 ITR 51High Court2017#3174 most cited

What is Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer must record proper satisfaction before invoking the provisions of Rule 8D for disallowance of expenditure relatable to exempt income.

38

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

Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT · section 14A · Rule 8D · satisfaction of AO · exempt income · dividend income · expenditure

Also reported as

87 Taxmann.com 148

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 10(35)Section 8DSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(8)section 10(35)section 14a(2)strategic investmentweighted deductioncup methodsection 115jb(2)section 35(2ab)section 194hspecified domestic transactionsection 80icsection 194j

Judgments citing Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…s further placed on the following decisions wherein the Courts and various benches of the Tribunal have repeatedly held that recording of satisfaction is condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction to apply Rule 8D of the Rules:  Eicher Motors v. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) – SLP dismissed in CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: S.L.P. (C) 27628 of 2018. / 408 ITR-OL 22 (St.)  PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.)  CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H)  CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del)  Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del)  CIT v. Taiki…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…s further placed on the following decisions wherein the Courts and various benches of the Tribunal have repeatedly held that recording of satisfaction is condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction to apply Rule 8D of the Rules:  Eicher Motors v. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) – SLP dismissed in CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: S.L.P. (C) 27628 of 2018. / 408 ITR-OL 22 (St.)  PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.)  CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H)  CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del)  Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del)  CIT v. Taiki…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…s further placed on the following decisions wherein the Courts and various benches of the Tribunal have repeatedly held that recording of satisfaction is condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction to apply Rule 8D of the Rules:  Eicher Motors v. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) – SLP dismissed in CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: S.L.P. (C) 27628 of 2018. / 408 ITR-OL 22 (St.)  PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.)  CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H)  CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del)  Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del)  CIT v. Taiki…

SICPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[ Sicpa India Private Limited, Asst. Cit, 308-312, Mercantile House, Circle -22(2), 15 K.G. Marg, Vs. Delhi. Delhi-110001. Pan-Aadcs6121L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akash Singhal, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.11.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10183865 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.09.2022 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Distribution Of Security Inks. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was E-Filed On 15.02.2021 Declaring Total Income At Rs.6,74,74,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) On 30.09.2022 Wherein Disallowance Of Rs.23,09,391/- Was Made On Account Of Dividend Distributions Tax & Educational Cess Claimed By The Assessee As Sicpa India Private Limited Vs. Acit Expenses & Further Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.25,56,078/- Was Made & The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.7,71,05,940/-.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 270A

…and brought on record details thereof. It is also argued by the Id. AR for the assessee that no proper satisfaction has been recorded by the AO before invoking the provisions contained under Rule 8D and relied upon the decisions of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT 398 ITR 51 (Del.) and HT Media Ltd. vs. PCIT 399 ITR 576 (Del.). However, on the other hand, Id. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders passed by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A). 22. First of all, when we examine the satisfaction recorded by the AO for all the three assessment years i.e. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 in order to invoke the provisions contained…

MANIPAL GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…xempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC) and 'Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49/250 Taxman 532/398 ITR 51 (Delhi). ITA Nos.719 to 721 & 976/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 26 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts show that assessee is a company engaged in the business of management consultancy services to its group concern, which has earned exempt income of Rs.23,09,005 as dividend…

MANIPAL HOSPITALS PVT. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT. LTD),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…xempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC) and 'Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49/250 Taxman 532/398 ITR 51 (Delhi). ITA Nos.719 to 721 & 976/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 26 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts show that assessee is a company engaged in the business of management consultancy services to its group concern, which has earned exempt income of Rs.23,09,005 as dividend…

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 721/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…xempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC) and 'Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49/250 Taxman 532/398 ITR 51 (Delhi). ITA Nos.719 to 721 & 976/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 26 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts show that assessee is a company engaged in the business of management consultancy services to its group concern, which has earned exempt income of Rs.23,09,005 as dividend…

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…xempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC) and 'Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49/250 Taxman 532/398 ITR 51 (Delhi). ITA Nos.719 to 721 & 976/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 26 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts show that assessee is a company engaged in the business of management consultancy services to its group concern, which has earned exempt income of Rs.23,09,005 as dividend…

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…xempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC) and 'Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49/250 Taxman 532/398 ITR 51 (Delhi). ITA Nos.719 to 721 & 976/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 26 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts show that assessee is a company engaged in the business of management consultancy services to its group concern, which has earned exempt income of Rs.23,09,005 as dividend…

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

ITA 350/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2)

…deduction is, thus, liable to be restricted to the claim of Rs.1734.03 lacs, as against weighted deduction equal to two times of Rs.867.92 Cr approved and certified by the prescribed authority in Form 3CL. 60.3 In this regard, in ‘Eicher Motors Ltd vs CIT’, 398 ITR 51 of 2017, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the R&D expenditure claimed by the assessee, ought to have been allowed and there was no question of remanding the matter to the AO for returning a finding on whether the expenditure was of revenue or capital nature because under Section 35(2AB) of the Act, both revenue and capital expenditure were a…

DCIT 3(3) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI CENTRE 41/44 MINOO DESAI MARG, MUMBAI

ITA 2233/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Co No. 55/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2233/Mum/2021) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Private Dy. Cit, Circle-3(3)(1) Limited Mumbai 1St Floor, 41/44, S P Centre, Minoo Vs. Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…No. 7020 of 2011) • PCIT vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 303 (Bom) • PCIT vs. Bajaj Finance Ltd. [2019] IT Appeal No. 237 & 485 of 2017 (Bom) • Pr. CIT vs. Vedanta Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 95 (Del) • Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 398 ITR 51 (Del) and various other decisions to hold the proposition that the ld. A.O. is casted upon the onus to explain with cogent reason for the dissatisfaction in the assessee’s claim. These decisions relied upon by the assessee and the first appellate authority does not support the assessee’s case for the facts and circumstances of this case. We hereby…

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3) (1) , MUMBAI

ITA 2025/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Co No. 55/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2233/Mum/2021) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Private Dy. Cit, Circle-3(3)(1) Limited Mumbai 1St Floor, 41/44, S P Centre, Minoo Vs. Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…No. 7020 of 2011) • PCIT vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 303 (Bom) • PCIT vs. Bajaj Finance Ltd. [2019] IT Appeal No. 237 & 485 of 2017 (Bom) • Pr. CIT vs. Vedanta Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 95 (Del) • Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 398 ITR 51 (Del) and various other decisions to hold the proposition that the ld. A.O. is casted upon the onus to explain with cogent reason for the dissatisfaction in the assessee’s claim. These decisions relied upon by the assessee and the first appellate authority does not support the assessee’s case for the facts and circumstances of this case. We hereby…

SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.84/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(3)Section 43B

…iness loss. 5.1. The CIT(A) / NFAC erred in disallowing weighted deduction of 50% of expenditure incurred in the inhouse R&D facility of the Appellant approved by the DSIR. 5.2 Appellant relies on the following among other decisions: Eicher Motors Ltd v CIT - 398 ITR 51 Del CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Guj) CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del) Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 405 ITR 318 Guj. CIT v BIOCON Ltd - 234 TAXMAN 0604 (Kar). 5.3 Without prejudice no disallowance u/s 35(2AB) can be made without reference to the Appropriate Authority u/s 35(3). 6.1 The CIT(…

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.: [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) 32 - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) - Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) (Del) - CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) Even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses,…

TAMIL NADU WATER INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 696/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.694/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Co. Ltd., 1St Floor, Poly Hose Towers, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Mahatma No. 86, Mount Road, Guindy, Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 32. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabct8153B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.696/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., 1St Floor, Poly Hose Towers, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), No. 86, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 034. Chennai – 32. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Viswanathan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)13, Chennai Dated 27.12.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 14A

…evant paragraphs of the supreme court decision in Gujarat Crypromet Ltd (supra) are usefully extracted below: “ 14. In so concluding, this Court is supported by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 315 ITR 312 and subsequently, the judgment of the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pennar Profiles Limited, (ITA No. 289 of 2003, decided on 11.02.2015). In Eicher Motors, the Court noted: "7.As observed supra, the Expln. 3C has now in clear terms provided that such conversion of interest amount into loan shall not…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. TAMIL NADU WATER INVESTMENT CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 694/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.694/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Co. Ltd., 1St Floor, Poly Hose Towers, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Mahatma No. 86, Mount Road, Guindy, Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 32. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabct8153B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.696/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., 1St Floor, Poly Hose Towers, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), No. 86, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 034. Chennai – 32. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Viswanathan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)13, Chennai Dated 27.12.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 14A

…evant paragraphs of the supreme court decision in Gujarat Crypromet Ltd (supra) are usefully extracted below: “ 14. In so concluding, this Court is supported by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 315 ITR 312 and subsequently, the judgment of the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pennar Profiles Limited, (ITA No. 289 of 2003, decided on 11.02.2015). In Eicher Motors, the Court noted: "7.As observed supra, the Expln. 3C has now in clear terms provided that such conversion of interest amount into loan shall not…

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 iv. CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) v. PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.:[2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) vi. H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) vii. Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) viii. PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) x. CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) xi. Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) xii. CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) 42. It was further submitted that even o…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 03, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5941/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Shri R.S. Singhvi & Satyajeet Goel
Section 14A

…ficer has only given a general observation. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-III* [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49 (Delhi)/[2017] 250 Taxman 532 (Delhi)/[2017] 398 ITR 51 (Delhi) “13. As regards the disallowance of expenditure for earning exempt income in terms of Section 14A of the Act, the settled legal position is that the AO had to record reasons for disagreeing with the submission of the Assessee that it had incurred no expenditure for earning such exempt income. This is plain even from Rule 8D (1) which requi…

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…td: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 - CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.: 401 ITR 445 (SC) - PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd.: [2019] 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi) - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) - PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT - Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) - CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) 40.0.2 It was further s…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…ance under section 14A of the Act even in case where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred: - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Del) - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51(Del) 3.0.5 It was further submitted that the onus is on the revenue to establish that the administrative expenses are incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income and ad hoc disallowance of administrative expenses cannot be made under section 14A of the Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT Act. For the aforesaid argument, the Ld. AR relied o…

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2