Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

…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…

DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi vs. Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

…nd brought on record details thereof. It is also argued by the ld. 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, ld. 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 & 17 ITA No.704/Kol./2015 ITA No.1586/Kol./2016 I…

Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

…nd brought on record details thereof. It is also argued by the ld. 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, ld. 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 & 17 ITA No.704/Kol./2015 ITA No.1586/Kol./2016 I…

M/S. Paramount Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.-187/Del/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 ITA No.-188/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Paramount Products Vs. DCIT Circle-19(2) (P) Ltd., New Delhi A-55, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 PAN : AAACP1213B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh Rajesh Malhotra, CA Revenue by : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) For the sake of convenience these two appeals are disposed of through this consolidated order as common issue is inv…

M/S. Paramount Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.-187/Del/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 ITA No.-188/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Paramount Products Vs. DCIT Circle-19(2) (P) Ltd., New Delhi A-55, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 PAN : AAACP1213B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh Rajesh Malhotra, CA Revenue by : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) For the sake of convenience these two appeals are disposed of through this consolidated order as common issue is inv…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

…he assessee claims that no expenses has been incurred. He placed reliance on various decisions including the decision of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs DCIT, 394 ITR 449(SC); H.T. Media Ltd. vs PCIT, 399 ITR 576 (Del); and Eicher Motors Ltd. vs CIT, 398 ITR 51 (Del) for such proposition. 6. According to the learned DR, the reasons recorded by the learned AO are sufficient to comply with the requirement of Section 14A and in 4 view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. vs DCIT (2017) 395 ITR 242 (Del),no particular format is required for such dissatisfacti…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ7079D Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER Per N.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A.K. Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs M/S A.K. Capital Dy. Commissioner Of Services Ltd., Income-Tax 609, 6Th Floor, Antriksh Circle 3, New Delhi Bhawan, 22 K.G. Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca1069L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.11.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm Challenging The Order Dated 29.12.2015 In Appeal No.336/15-16 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-I, New Delhi

…the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 240 (Delhi); (iii) Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs CIT-III (2017) 398 ITR 51 (Delhi); (iv) Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi); (v) Joint Investments (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi); and the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), learned AR contended that without recording any reasons for rejecting the computation o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Crown Corporation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, Cross

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs M/S Crown Asstt. Commissioner Of Corporation P. Ltd., Income-Tax D-5, Defence Colony, Circle 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacc8688D C.O. No.321/Del Of 2015 (In Ita No.2097/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Crown Corporation P. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax D-5, Defence Colony, Circle 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacc8688D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Revenue By Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 05.11.2018

…the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 240 (Delhi); (iii) Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs CIT-III (2017) 398 ITR 51 (Delhi); (iv) Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi); and (v) Joint Investments (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi). 15. In view of the above factual and legal position, we find that any addition made by the learned AO not in accordance with the mandate under rule 14A(2) and Rule 8D(1) cannot be sustained. We accordingly, d…

M/S. Sun Vaccum Formers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

…ee from its reserves & surplus, share capital and had not utilised any borrowed funds, therefore, no interest disallowance should be made. In support he strongly relied upon the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs CIT (2017) 398 ITR 51. 13. On the other hand Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the order of Ld. CIT (A). 14. On perusal of the impugned order, we find AO has made disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs. 1,23,154/- and indirect disallowance of expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 3,88,310/-. In so far as disallowance of interest is concerned, we find that assessee h…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sun Vaccum Formers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

…ee from its reserves & surplus, share capital and had not utilised any borrowed funds, therefore, no interest disallowance should be made. In support he strongly relied upon the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs CIT (2017) 398 ITR 51. 13. On the other hand Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the order of Ld. CIT (A). 14. On perusal of the impugned order, we find AO has made disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs. 1,23,154/- and indirect disallowance of expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 3,88,310/-. In so far as disallowance of interest is concerned, we find that assessee h…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

…arned with expenses incurred by assessee is a sine qua non, which is not complied with by the Assessing Officer in the present case. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) • Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Delhi HC) • Associated Law Advisers Vs. ITO : 87 taxmann.com 148 (Delhi ITAT) Further, in absence of earning of exempt dividend income, the provisions of section 14A of the Act cannot be applied. In the present case, no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the relevant Assessment Year. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisio…

M/S. Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

…arned with expenses incurred by assessee is a sine qua non, which is not complied with by the Assessing Officer in the present case. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) • Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Delhi HC) • Associated Law Advisers Vs. ITO : 87 taxmann.com 148 (Delhi ITAT) Further, in absence of earning of exempt dividend income, the provisions of section 14A of the Act cannot be applied. In the present case, no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the relevant Assessment Year. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisio…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moser Baer India Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

…arned with expenses incurred by assessee is a sine qua non, which is not complied with by the Assessing Officer in the present case. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) • Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Delhi HC) • Associated Law Advisers Vs. ITO : 87 taxmann.com 148 (Delhi ITAT) Further, in absence of earning of exempt dividend income, the provisions of section 14A of the Act cannot be applied. In the present case, no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the relevant Assessment Year. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisio…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

…arned with expenses incurred by assessee is a sine qua non, which is not complied with by the Assessing Officer in the present case. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) • Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Delhi HC) • Associated Law Advisers Vs. ITO : 87 taxmann.com 148 (Delhi ITAT) Further, in absence of earning of exempt dividend income, the provisions of section 14A of the Act cannot be applied. In the present case, no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the relevant Assessment Year. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisio…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M.M.Aqua Technologies Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

…e time the impugned order was passed, the assessee cannot claim deduction under Section 43B of the Act. 11. 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 shal…