Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

65 SOT 80Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#10704 most cited

What is Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) authority for?

Disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) should not be made for strategic investments.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Also referred to as

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd · 65 SOT 80 · strategic investments · disallowance · rule 8D(2)(iii) · business income · deductions

Judgments citing Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4588/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…o gain control over the said concern and therefore constitutes strategic investments on which no disallowance was called for. In view of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) reported in 65 SOT 80(Mum), we are of the considered view that no disallowance is required to be made in the case of strategic investments. We are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4587/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…o gain control over the said concern and therefore constitutes strategic investments on which no disallowance was called for. In view of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) reported in 65 SOT 80(Mum), we are of the considered view that no disallowance is required to be made in the case of strategic investments. We are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4586/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…o gain control over the said concern and therefore constitutes strategic investments on which no disallowance was called for. In view of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) reported in 65 SOT 80(Mum), we are of the considered view that no disallowance is required to be made in the case of strategic investments. We are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4585/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…o gain control over the said concern and therefore constitutes strategic investments on which no disallowance was called for. In view of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) reported in 65 SOT 80(Mum), we are of the considered view that no disallowance is required to be made in the case of strategic investments. We are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii…

DCIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4584/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…o gain control over the said concern and therefore constitutes strategic investments on which no disallowance was called for. In view of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) reported in 65 SOT 80(Mum), we are of the considered view that no disallowance is required to be made in the case of strategic investments. We are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii…

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3518/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…o gain control over the said concern and therefore constitutes strategic investments on which no disallowance was called for. In view of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) reported in 65 SOT 80(Mum), we are of the considered view that no disallowance is required to be made in the case of strategic investments. We are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii…

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3517/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…o gain control over the said concern and therefore constitutes strategic investments on which no disallowance was called for. In view of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) reported in 65 SOT 80(Mum), we are of the considered view that no disallowance is required to be made in the case of strategic investments. We are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii…

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3516/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…o gain control over the said concern and therefore constitutes strategic investments on which no disallowance was called for. In view of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) reported in 65 SOT 80(Mum), we are of the considered view that no disallowance is required to be made in the case of strategic investments. We are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii…

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3514/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…o gain control over the said concern and therefore constitutes strategic investments on which no disallowance was called for. In view of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) reported in 65 SOT 80(Mum), we are of the considered view that no disallowance is required to be made in the case of strategic investments. We are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii…

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3513/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…o gain control over the said concern and therefore constitutes strategic investments on which no disallowance was called for. In view of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) reported in 65 SOT 80(Mum), we are of the considered view that no disallowance is required to be made in the case of strategic investments. We are not in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii…

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) (65 SOT 80) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax