Escorts Ltd. v. ACIT

102 TTJ 522Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#7313 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also reported as

89 ITD 65

Judgments citing Escorts Ltd. v. ACIT

JETAIR PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI

ITA 3487/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.3487 /Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Jetair Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit 13, Community Centre, Special Range-5 Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi New Delhi- 110016 Pan : Aaacj0121C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…s given in earlier years, the same cannot be made in subsequent years. “1) CIT v Sridev Enterprises [192 ITR 165 (Kar)] 2) CIT v. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd [209 CTR 167 (P&H)] 3) Escorts Ltd. v. ACIT [104 ITD 427 (Del)] 4) Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills v. ACIT [89 ITD 65 (TM)(Chd)] 5) ITO v. J.M.P. Enterprises [101 ITD 324 (SMC)(Asr)] 6) Sushee Hi Tech Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (33 taxman.com 236) (Hyd) 7) Virendra R. Gandhi v. ACIT (Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2004 with Tax Appeal No. 124 of 2005) dated 27.11.2014 (Gujarat High Court)” 10. Ld. Sr. DR took the Bench through the findings of ld. AO and Ld. First Appel…

IMPERIAL CONSULTANTS & SECURITIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS OMPERIAL CONSULTANTS & SECURITIES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT -6 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3529/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Imperial Consultants & Dcit, Circle - 6(3)(1) Securities Ltd. Room No. 506, 5Th Floor (Formerly Imperial Consultants & Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Securities P. Ltd) Vs. Mumbai 400020 Manickam Complex, Gr. Floor 1/3, General Paters Roadchennai 600002 Pan – Aaacg4413G Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle - 6(3)(1) M/S. Imperial Consultants & Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Securities Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Essar House, 11, Kk Marg Mumbai 400020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034 Pan – Aaacg4413G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56Section 57

…R. Gandhi vs. ACIT Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2004& Anr. Dated 27.11.2014. The ld AR also relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises [192 ITR 165 (Karn)] (ii) Escorts Ltd. vs. ACIT [104 ITD 427 (Del)] (iii) Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills vs. ACIT [89 ITD 65 (TM) (Chd)] (iv) ITO vs. J.M.P. Enterprises [101 ITD 324 (SMC) (Asr)] (v) Virendra R. Gandhi vs. ACIT [T.A No. 20 of 2004 with T.A. No. 124 of 2005 dated 27.11.2014 (Guj) (vi) ITO vs. Abhinand Investment Ltd. [ITA No. 982/Kol/2016 dated 07.02.2018] (vii) Gulita Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA No. 91/Mum/2016 dated 03.08.2018] (viii) ITO vs. Davinder…

GULITA SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 91/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…is regard 6 ITA 91/Mum/2016 relied upon the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs Sridev Enterprises [192 ITR 165 (Kar)] 2. CIT vs Industrial Cables (India) Ltd [209 CTR 167 (P&H)] 3. Escorts Ltd vs ACIT [204 ITD 427 (Del)] 4. Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills vs ACIT [89 ITD 65 (TM)(Chd)] 5. ITO vs J.M.P. Enterprises [101 ITD 324 (SMC)(Asr)] 6. Sushee Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd vs DCIT [ 33 taxman.com 236(Hyd)] 7. Virendra R Gandhi vs ACIT (Tax Appeal No.20 of 2004 with Tax Appeal No.124 of 2005 dated 27.11.20`14 (Gujarat High Court). 6. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) sub…

MPS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 963/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 14A

…ionate management expenses while computing the dividend income. The Special Bench decision of ITAT in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs ITO [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Del) (SB). The AO has relied on the decision of the Delhi ITAT in the case of Escorts Ltd., vs ACIT 102 TTJ 522 etc. 9. We heard the rival submissions. Since, the assessee has not earned any dividend (exempt) income during the year, following the jurisdictional High Court decisions in the cases of Redington (India) Limited vs ACIT, Chennai [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 257 and CIT, Central(1), Chennai vs Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 221…

MAJOR BRANDS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

ITA 2153/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.2153/M/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Major Brands (India) Pvt. Vs. Acit-5(2), Mumbai Ltd. 401,Skyline Icon, Andheri Kurla Aayakarbhavan,M.K. Road,Andheri(East), Mumbai- Road,Mumbai-400020. 400059. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm 4949 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Paras S.Savla, Ar Respondent By :Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Paras S.Savla, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nce by taking the average total assets before the liabilities as per the balance sheet, and the working of Rule 8D(2)(ii) was required modification. With regard to Rule 8D(2)(iii), the ld. CIT(A) noted that the decision ITAT, Delhi in the case of Escorts Ltd, 102 TTJ 522, is applicable, wherein the Tribunal held that indirect management and administration expenses qualify for disallowance u/s 14A. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that the similar view was also taken by ITAT Chennai in the case of Southern Petrochemical Industries (93 TTJ) 161) wherein it was held that decision making process is very complicated and requ…

SPACO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2882/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2882/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Spaco Technologies बिाम/ Dcit, Circle 5(3), Aayakar (India) P. Ltd., Bhavan, Mumbai 901, Prasad Chambers, V. Opera House, Mumbai- 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcs5307E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. M.C. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal
Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…limb(ii) of rule 8D. 4.2.3. With regard to disallowance under limb (iii) of rule 8D, the same is applicable to work out indirect expenses relatable to earning of exempt income in the instant case. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Escorts Ltd, 102 TTJ 522, wherein the ITAT Delhi has clearly held that indirect management and administrative expenses qualify for disallowance u/s 14A and there is no decision so far by a similar forum contradicting the above findings. Similar view was also taken by IT, Chennai in the case of Southern Petrochemical Industries (93 TTJ 161) as under: “... Whether to inves…

NARENDRA AMBWANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7628/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Narendra Ambwani The Deputy Commissioner 1201, Sterling Sea Face, Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs. Dr. Annie B. Road, Worli, 5(2)(1), Mumbai Mumbai-400 018 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aeipa8788F

For Appellant: Mrugakshi K. Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Arju Garodia, DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…i) of Rule 8D since no disallowance was made by invoking them. However, the provisions of limb (iii) of Rule 8D(2) which are general in nature are clearly applicable in appellant’s own case. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of escorts Ltd., 102 TTJ 522, wherein the ITAT Delhi has clearly held that indirect management and administrative expenses qualify for disallowance under section 14A and there is no decision so far by any similar forum contradicting the above findings. Similar view was also taken by ITAT Chennai in the case of Southern Petrochemical Industries (93 TTJ 161) as under: - “…whe…

DCIT (OSD) RG 10(1), MUMBAI vs. GODREJ AGROVET LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1278/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Years:2008-09

Section 14ASection 43(6)

…in shares was out of own funds and the borrowed funds were entirely utilized for business purposes, thus, no interest can be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. The ratio laid down in Escorts Ltd. vs ACIT 104 ITD 427 (Del.) and Malwa Cotton Spining Mills vs ACIT 89 ITD 65 (Chd.)™ supports the case of the assessee. Likewise with respect to Plchem Hygiene Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, for the ITA No.8489/Mum/2011, M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd. impugned assessment year, no additional investment was made. So far as, Godrej Oil Plantation Ltd. (formerly known as Godrej Aqua Feeds Ltd.) (subsequently knows as Godrej…

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. GODREJ AGROVET LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 152/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Years:2008-09

Section 14ASection 43(6)

…in shares was out of own funds and the borrowed funds were entirely utilized for business purposes, thus, no interest can be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. The ratio laid down in Escorts Ltd. vs ACIT 104 ITD 427 (Del.) and Malwa Cotton Spining Mills vs ACIT 89 ITD 65 (Chd.)™ supports the case of the assessee. Likewise with respect to Plchem Hygiene Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, for the ITA No.8489/Mum/2011, M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd. impugned assessment year, no additional investment was made. So far as, Godrej Oil Plantation Ltd. (formerly known as Godrej Aqua Feeds Ltd.) (subsequently knows as Godrej…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1431/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…oposed. The Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that the company has to incur a minor expenditure embedded in the Indirect Expenditure of the assessee towards maintaining these investments. The Delhi ITAT in the case of Escorts Ltd., Vs ACIT reported in 102 TTJ 522 had held that Indirect Management and Administrative Expenses qualify for disallowance u/s 14A. Therefore, on this count also, disallowance u/s 14A becomes mandatory. The Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Leena Ramachandran recently held that in such a similar situation as described above, disallowance u/s 14A is a must and hence Assessing…

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1180/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…oposed. The Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that the company has to incur a minor expenditure embedded in the Indirect Expenditure of the assessee towards maintaining these investments. The Delhi ITAT in the case of Escorts Ltd., Vs ACIT reported in 102 TTJ 522 had held that Indirect Management and Administrative Expenses qualify for disallowance u/s 14A. Therefore, on this count also, disallowance u/s 14A becomes mandatory. The Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Leena Ramachandran recently held that in such a similar situation as described above, disallowance u/s 14A is a must and hence Assessing…

GOLDQUEST INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2283/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. G. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekantha, JCIT
Section 10(34)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 249

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2283/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2009-2010 M/s. Goldquest International Pvt. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd, Income Tax, The Rain Tree Place, B wing, Company Circle II(2) 9th floor, No.7, McNichols Road, Chennai. Chetput, Chennai 600 031. [PAN AABCG3717C ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : S…

CHAITANYA BUILDERS & LEASING (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1595/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…loan bearings funds. The Assessing Officer found interest expenditure was incurred for earning exempted income and proportionate cost of interest is to be treated as indirect expenditure and relied on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Escorts Ltd. vs. ACIT 102 TTJ 522 and also Kerala High Court decision of Smt. Leena Ramachandran and concluded that provisions of Section 14A shall apply and further on perusal of the profit and loss account , the Assessing Officer found an interest of "95,75,865/- attributable and applied Rule 8D provisions with three limbs and calculated disallowance of "15,21,944/-. The Asse…

E-CITY INVESTMENTS & HOLDINGS CO. PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…position, reliance was placed upon following decision: i. CIT vs Sridev Enterprises (192 ITR 165)(Kar.) ii. ITO vs J.M.P. Enterprises (101 ITD 324, 336-337) (Asr) iii. Escorts Ltd. vs ACIT (104 ITD 427, 512-513)(Del.) iv. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills vs ACIT (89 ITD 65, 94- 95)(Chd)(TM) v. CIT vs Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. 209 CTR (P & H) 167 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri J. Sarvanan, defended the conclusion drawn in assessment order as well as 4 E-City Investment & Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.8382/Mum/11 impugned order by contending that commercial expediency was not proved by the assessee…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3388/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3357/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Yes Bank Limited, बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner Of Income 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.614, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, 400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3388/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank Limited, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 14ASection 35D

…D.R submitted that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is required to be made even if the interest free funds have been used for making investments. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) Escorts Ltd (102 TTJ 522) (b) Southern Petro chemical industries (93 TTJ 161) (c) Smt. Leena Ramachandran (339 ITR 293)(Ker). 4. We heard the rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. We agree with the contention of the assessee that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) and (ii) is required to be made, if the non- interest bearing funds available with the as…

YES BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3357/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3357/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Yes Bank Limited, बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner Of Income 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.614, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, 400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3388/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank Limited, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 14ASection 35D

…D.R submitted that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is required to be made even if the interest free funds have been used for making investments. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) Escorts Ltd (102 TTJ 522) (b) Southern Petro chemical industries (93 TTJ 161) (c) Smt. Leena Ramachandran (339 ITR 293)(Ker). 4. We heard the rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. We agree with the contention of the assessee that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) and (ii) is required to be made, if the non- interest bearing funds available with the as…