Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT

DCIT Cen Cir 4(4) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Uma Polymers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

…subsidiary companies that have controlling interest, no disallowance is warranted u/s.14A. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements, which was also placed on record.  Garware Wall Ropes Vs. Addl. CIT (2004)65 SOT 86 (ITAT Mumbai Bench)  JM Financial Ltd., vs. Addl CIT (ITA 4521/Mum/2012) Order dt 26.03.2014.  CIT vs. Oriental Structural Engg. (Pvt.) Ltd., (ITA 605/2012) (Delhi High Court decision dt. 15/01/2013) 10. As per learned AR, investment not yielding tax free income during the assessment year is required to be excluded from investment while computing…

Uma Polymers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

…subsidiary companies that have controlling interest, no disallowance is warranted u/s.14A. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements, which was also placed on record.  Garware Wall Ropes Vs. Addl. CIT (2004)65 SOT 86 (ITAT Mumbai Bench)  JM Financial Ltd., vs. Addl CIT (ITA 4521/Mum/2012) Order dt 26.03.2014.  CIT vs. Oriental Structural Engg. (Pvt.) Ltd., (ITA 605/2012) (Delhi High Court decision dt. 15/01/2013) 10. As per learned AR, investment not yielding tax free income during the assessment year is required to be excluded from investment while computing…

Priya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD), Cir 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Priya Ltd. Dcit(Osd), Circle-2(3), 209-210, Kimatraj Building बनाम/ R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, 02 Floor, 77/79 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd), Priya Ltd. 209-210, Kimatraj Building Circle-2(3), बनाम/ 02 Floor, 77/79 R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q

…ting the Assessing Officer to recomputed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules after excluding the long term capital investment in subsidiary/group concerns relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Roaps Ltd. (65 SOT 86) ignoring the fact that the decision of the Tribunal has not been accepted by the Department. 4.1. During hearing, the ld. DR advanced arguments, which is identical to the ground raised. The ld. counsel for the assessee defended the order of the Tribunal. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We fin…

Mata Securities India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year 2010-11 Mata Securities India Pvt. ACIT, Circle 4(3), Ltd., 2nd Floor, Rahimtoola Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. House, 7 Homji Street, Maharshi Karve Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 001 PAN/GIR No. : AAACM 4228 M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by: Ms D. Hariya, AR Respondent by: Shri S.K.Poddar, DR Date of Hearing: 17.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 28.12.2016 O R D E R PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant…

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Aptech Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

…rategic considerations to which the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied as has been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v.Oriental Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. 2013] 32. taxmann.com 210 (Delhi), Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT (2014)(65 SOT 86)(Mum). and in the case of M/s JM Financial Limited V/s Addl CIT(ITA No.4521/M/2012. We, therefore, following the ratio laid down in the above decisions, delete the disallowance made u/s 14A by setting aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and directing the AO accordingly. 33. Ground no.8 is in respect of upholding the addition of Rs. Rs.5,15,396/- by the A…

Aptech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

…rategic considerations to which the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied as has been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v.Oriental Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. 2013] 32. taxmann.com 210 (Delhi), Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT (2014)(65 SOT 86)(Mum). and in the case of M/s JM Financial Limited V/s Addl CIT(ITA No.4521/M/2012. We, therefore, following the ratio laid down in the above decisions, delete the disallowance made u/s 14A by setting aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and directing the AO accordingly. 33. Ground no.8 is in respect of upholding the addition of Rs. Rs.5,15,396/- by the A…

Aptech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

…rategic considerations to which the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied as has been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v.Oriental Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. 2013] 32. taxmann.com 210 (Delhi), Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT (2014)(65 SOT 86)(Mum). and in the case of M/s JM Financial Limited V/s Addl CIT(ITA No.4521/M/2012. We, therefore, following the ratio laid down in the above decisions, delete the disallowance made u/s 14A by setting aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and directing the AO accordingly. 33. Ground no.8 is in respect of upholding the addition of Rs. Rs.5,15,396/- by the A…

Aptech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

…rategic considerations to which the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied as has been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v.Oriental Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. 2013] 32. taxmann.com 210 (Delhi), Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT (2014)(65 SOT 86)(Mum). and in the case of M/s JM Financial Limited V/s Addl CIT(ITA No.4521/M/2012. We, therefore, following the ratio laid down in the above decisions, delete the disallowance made u/s 14A by setting aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and directing the AO accordingly. 33. Ground no.8 is in respect of upholding the addition of Rs. Rs.5,15,396/- by the A…

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Apatech Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

…rategic considerations to which the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied as has been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v.Oriental Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. 2013] 32. taxmann.com 210 (Delhi), Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT (2014)(65 SOT 86)(Mum). and in the case of M/s JM Financial Limited V/s Addl CIT(ITA No.4521/M/2012. We, therefore, following the ratio laid down in the above decisions, delete the disallowance made u/s 14A by setting aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and directing the AO accordingly. 33. Ground no.8 is in respect of upholding the addition of Rs. Rs.5,15,396/- by the A…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Apatech Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

…rategic considerations to which the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied as has been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v.Oriental Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. 2013] 32. taxmann.com 210 (Delhi), Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT (2014)(65 SOT 86)(Mum). and in the case of M/s JM Financial Limited V/s Addl CIT(ITA No.4521/M/2012. We, therefore, following the ratio laid down in the above decisions, delete the disallowance made u/s 14A by setting aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and directing the AO accordingly. 33. Ground no.8 is in respect of upholding the addition of Rs. Rs.5,15,396/- by the A…

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

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

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7452/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S Saurashtra Fuels Pvt Ltd- Asstt Commissioner Of Income 93-C, Mittal Tower, Tax, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nariman Point, Room No.609, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020

…of his arguments : a) Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd V/s ACIT (56 taxmann.com 361, Mum Trib) and b) ITO V/s Strides Arcolab Ltd (138 ITD 323) (Mum) Trib. c) CIT V/s Oriental Structural Engg P Ltd (35 taxmann. Com 210, Del HC) d) Garware Wall Ropes Ltd V/s ACIT (65 SOT 86, Mum Trib); e) M/s J M Financial Ltd V/s ACIT (ITA No.4521/Mum/2012), Shri Jigar P Shah V ACIT (ITA No.4366/M/2014 dated 24th Feb 2016 f) 8. On the contrary, the ld.DR relied on the order of authorities below. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties, perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities…

Bachhraj & Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shuklaआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3791/M/2012 (Ay: 2008-2009) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2555/M/2014 (Ay: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ Bachhraj Factories Private Ito-3(1)(2), Limited, Mumbai. Vs. Bajaj Bhavan, 226, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4654N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…, for the first time, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the said average investment computed in both the years requires down ward revision in view of the coordinate Bench decision in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. Addl. CIT [2014] 65 SOT 86 (Mumbai-Trib.); decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. JM Financial Limited vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.4521/Mum/2012 (AY 2009-2010), dated 26.3.2014 and many other cases qua the strategic investments are become part of the investments of the assessee. Relying on various decisions, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that this issue may be…

Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO is dismissed

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ “ “ “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA/8488/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. ACIT-10(2) Pirojshah Nagar,Vikhroli Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 079. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACG 1395 D आयकर अपील सं/. ITA/850…

Nirupama P. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

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

…pose of investment is to hold controlling stake in the group concerns and not for earning any dividend income. The ld. AR submitted that an identical issue was expressed by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd V/s CIT (2014) 65 SOT 86(Mumbai). The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is dealing in trading in derivatives, equity and commodities and hence the investment held by the assessee forms part of his stock-in-trade. Accordingly, by placing the reliance on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd, t…

Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

…td. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 430 no disallowance is to be made in the assessee’s case. As per the decisions rendered by the Mumbai Tribunal in JM Financial Ltd. vs. AICT 2014 TIOL 2002 (Mum) and Garware Wall Rops Ltd. vs. ACIT 65 SOT 86 (Mum) the transaction being a strategic investment in the shares of assessee’s subsidiary company provisions of 14A of the Act are not applicable. On the other hand the Ld. departmental representative relying upon the findings of authorities below submitted that since each case is required to be decided on its own merit, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly…

Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(1), Mumbai

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/7218/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Emkay Global Financial Services Dcit, Circle-4(1) Ltd.7Th Floor, The Ruby Senapati Bapat Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Marg, Dadar (West),Mumbai-400 028. Pan:Aaace 0994 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri J. Saravanan-Dr Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2016 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 लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A)-8,Mumbai,Dated 01.10.2014,The Assessee Has Filed The Above Appeal.The Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Share Broking,Trading & Dealing In Shares & Securities,Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.09.2010 Declaring Total Income At Rs.17.16 Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed Its Assessmen On 23.03. 2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.17.56 Crores.

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/7218/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Emkay Global Financial Services DCIT, Circle-4(1) Ltd.7th Floor, The Ruby Senapati Bapat Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Marg,…

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4072/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Garware Wall Ropes Limited बनाम/ Addl. Cit 5(1) Chowpatty Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Sandhurst Bridge, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400007

…Mumbai for the A.Y.2009- 10 in assessee’s own case. The CIT(A) has also reproduced the relevant para of the ITAT order which has been mentioned above. Reliance is placed upon the law relied in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. V/s. ACIT of Hon’ble ITAT for A.Y.2008-09 (65 SOT 86), Mumbai and J.M. Financial Limited Vs. ACIT 4521/M/12 and Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No.5748/Mum/2012). No distinguishable facts have been placed on record. The investment is the strategic investment in the group concern which does not made to earn the exempt income. It is held that the Assessing Officer should exclude the whole…

DCIT 5(1), Mumbai vs. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4072/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Garware Wall Ropes Limited बनाम/ Addl. Cit 5(1) Chowpatty Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Sandhurst Bridge, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400007

…Mumbai for the A.Y.2009- 10 in assessee’s own case. The CIT(A) has also reproduced the relevant para of the ITAT order which has been mentioned above. Reliance is placed upon the law relied in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. V/s. ACIT of Hon’ble ITAT for A.Y.2008-09 (65 SOT 86), Mumbai and J.M. Financial Limited Vs. ACIT 4521/M/12 and Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No.5748/Mum/2012). No distinguishable facts have been placed on record. The investment is the strategic investment in the group concern which does not made to earn the exempt income. It is held that the Assessing Officer should exclude the whole…

Sunidhi Securities & Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1245/Mum/2012, 4983/Mum/2012 & 6135/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Sunidhi Securities & बनाम/ A.C.I.T. 4(2) Finance Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maker Chamber Iv, Mumbai 14Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs1657D

…ith rule 8D of the Act. In support of this contention the learned representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in ITA No.1923/M/12 and others Asst. CIT Vs. M/s. Smart Chip Ltd. and 65 SOT 86 (Mum-Trib) Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT and Mumbai Bench in ITA Nos. 1752 to 1754/Mum/13 and others M/s.Twinkle Enviro Tech. Ltd. Vs. DCIT. It is also argued that the shares which did not earn any dividend income is not also liable to be included for the purpose to calculate the expenditure towards to earn the exempt income and placed reli…