Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another

7 SCC 421Reported decision2017#4535 most cited

What is Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another authority for?

The decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. [2017] 7 SCC 421 is referred to in the context of the rule of consistency, particularly concerning the application of provisions related to income calculation and disallowances.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax · 2017 · business income · deductions · rule of consistency · section 32 · section 37(1) · section 56(2)(ii) · section 56(2)(iii) · section 57(ii)

Sections most often in play

Section 32Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(ii)Section 56(2)(iii)Section 57(ii)

Issues it is cited on

companysection 14indiatotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another

Hcl Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…Ltd. the P.B.) as under: “49. It is relevant to note that impugned judgment in this appeal relies on earlier judgment of Bombay High Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another, (2017) 7 SCC 421, where the Division Bench of the Bombay High court after elaborately considering the principles to determine the prospectivity or retrospectivity of the amendment has concluded that Rule 8D is prospective in nature. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High court dated 12.08.2010 an appeal was filed in this court which has been decided by v…

Hcl Technologies Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…Ltd. the P.B.) as under: “49. It is relevant to note that impugned judgment in this appeal relies on earlier judgment of Bombay High Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another, (2017) 7 SCC 421, where the Division Bench of the Bombay High court after elaborately considering the principles to determine the prospectivity or retrospectivity of the amendment has concluded that Rule 8D is prospective in nature. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High court dated 12.08.2010 an appeal was filed in this court which has been decided by v…

Director of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai vs. M/S. American Express Bank Ltd

C.A. No.-008291-008291 - 2015Supreme Court15 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 44C

…adesh & Ors v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 12, M.V. Joshi v. M.U. Shimpi & Anr, reported in 1961 SCC OnLine SC 56 & Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, reported in (2017) 7 SCC 421]. 31. While, at first glance, the principle of plain meaning, as referred to above, may seem simple and self-contained, it is crucial to understand the nuances involved when applying it to disputes Civil Appeal Nos 8291 of 2015 & 4451 of 2016 Page 23 of 55 surrounding statutory interpretation. The same has been lu…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Pvr Ltd

The appeal is dismissed in favour of the

ITA/279/2025HC Delhi01 Sept 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 43(1)

…oresaid judgment of the Bombay High court dated 12.08.2010 an appeal was filed in this court which has been decided by vide its judgment reported in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 7 SCC 421. This Court, while deciding the above appeal repelled the challenge raised by the assessee regarding vires of Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the a…

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotels and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R
Section 32

…oner of Income Tax [1992] 1 SCC 659). The decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Radhasoami Satsang (Supra) has been referred in a decision of a recent origin in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, & Anr.[2017] 7 SCC 421 14. We may also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.com 157 (Bom), in which this Court referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 4 Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2006] 282 ITR 273(SC), which followed…

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotel and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R
Section 32

…oner of Income Tax [1992] 1 SCC 659). The decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Radhasoami Satsang (Supra) has been referred in a decision of a recent origin in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, & Anr.[2017] 7 SCC 421 14. We may also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.com 157 (Bom), in which this Court referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 4 Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2006] 282 ITR 273(SC), which followed…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1907/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranthe Karnataka Bank Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 2(1) Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Mangalore Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle – 2(1) The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Mangalore Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27-03-2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Mangaluru & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Banking Company Carrying On Banking Business. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish
Section 14A

…an Bank Ltd (2021)(438 ITR 1)(SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed following view:- “24. Another important judgment dealing with Section 14A disallowance which merits consideration is Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. V. DCIT [(2017) 7 SCC 421. Here the assessee had access to adequate interest free funds to make investments and the issue pertained to disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn dividend income, which was not forming part of total income of the Assessee. Justice Ranjan Gogoi writing the opinion on behalf of the Division Bench observed that for disallowance of expenditure…

ACIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi vs. Clix Finance India Unlimited, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3260/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…erein any specific expenditure can be allocated for earning of the exempt income. In support, he relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 15 SSC 523 and Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 7 SCC 421. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT (Appeals) and submitted that the Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction and then only he was invoked Rule 8D for making the disallowance. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant finding given in the order. We h…

Clix Finance India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2166/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…erein any specific expenditure can be allocated for earning of the exempt income. In support, he relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 15 SSC 523 and Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 7 SCC 421. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT (Appeals) and submitted that the Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction and then only he was invoked Rule 8D for making the disallowance. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant finding given in the order. We h…

Kothari Products Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

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

ITA 255/LKW/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2009-10 &

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 4A

…rej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. V. DCIT11. Here the assessee had access to adequate interest free funds to make investments and the issue pertained to disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn dividend income, which was not forming part 11 [(2017) 7 SCC 421. Page 17 of 22 of total income of the Assessee. Justice Ranjan Gogoi writing the I.T.A. No.928/Lkw/2014 9 I.T.A. No.255/Lkw/2015 opinion on behalf of the Division Bench observed that for disallowance of expenditure incurred in earning an income, it is a condition precedent that such income should not be includible in total income of assessee. This…

Kothari Products Ltd., Kanpur vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

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

ITA 928/LKW/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2009-10 &

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 4A

…rej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. V. DCIT11. Here the assessee had access to adequate interest free funds to make investments and the issue pertained to disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn dividend income, which was not forming part 11 [(2017) 7 SCC 421. Page 17 of 22 of total income of the Assessee. Justice Ranjan Gogoi writing the I.T.A. No.928/Lkw/2014 9 I.T.A. No.255/Lkw/2015 opinion on behalf of the Division Bench observed that for disallowance of expenditure incurred in earning an income, it is a condition precedent that such income should not be includible in total income of assessee. This…

The Karnataka Bank Limited, Mangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

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

ITA 2024/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gopinath C.H., D.R
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…d vs. CIT (2021 (9) TMI 566)(SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed following view:- “24. Another important judgment dealing with Section 14A disallowance which merits consideration is Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. V. DCIT [(2017) 7 SCC 421. Here the assessee had access to adequate interest free funds to make investments and the issue pertained to disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn dividend income, which was not forming part of total income of the Assessee. Justice Ranjan Gogoi writing the opinion on behalf of the Division Bench observed that for disallowance of expenditure…

ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi vs. Mlv Credits Holding & Leasing Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6668/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Modern Mvl Credits Circle-17(1), Holding & Leasing Ltd. New Delhi F-79,/18, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110062 Pan-Aaacm9072H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…It is also contended that the Assessing Officer has not demonstrated the nexus between expenses incurred with the earning of the exempt income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 7 | P a g e case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs DCIT 11 [2017] 7 SCC 421 held that what cannot be denied is that the requirement for attracting the provisions of section 14A(1) of the Act is proof of the fact that the expenditure sought to be disallowed had actually been incurred in earning the dividend income. We find that in the present case, no such finding has been recorded by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, no i…

The South Indian Bank Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-009606-009606 - 2011Supreme Court09 Sept 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

Section 14Section 14A

…Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. V. DCIT11. Here the assessee had access to adequate interest free funds to make investments and the issue pertained to disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn dividend income, which was not forming part 11 [(2017) 7 SCC 421. Page 17 of 22 of total income of the Assessee. Justice Ranjan Gogoi writing the opinion on behalf of the Division Bench observed that for disallowance of expenditure incurred in earning an income, it is a condition precedent that such income should not be includible in total income of assessee. This Court accordingly concluded that…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/214/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…ted 12-8-2010 [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1174 : (2010) 328 ITR 81] an appeal was filed in this Court which has been decided vide its judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (2017) 7 SCC 421] . This Court, while deciding the above appeal, repelled the challenge raised by the assessee regarding vires of Section 14-A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court sp…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/215/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…ted 12-8-2010 [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1174 : (2010) 328 ITR 81] an appeal was filed in this Court which has been decided vide its judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (2017) 7 SCC 421] . This Court, while deciding the above appeal, repelled the challenge raised by the assessee regarding vires of Section 14-A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court sp…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/213/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021
For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…ted 12-8-2010 [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1174 : (2010) 328 ITR 81] an appeal was filed in this Court which has been decided vide its judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (2017) 7 SCC 421] . This Court, while deciding the above appeal, repelled the challenge raised by the assessee regarding vires of Section 14-A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court sp…

ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2364/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High court dated 12.08.2010 an appeal was filed in this court which has been decided by vide its judgment reported in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 7 SCC 421. This Court, while deciding the above appeal repelled the challenge raised by the assessee regarding vires of Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifical…

Religare Finvest Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.Ciy, Range-21, New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1947/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High court dated 12.08.2010 an appeal was filed in this court which has been decided by vide its judgment reported in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 7 SCC 421. This Court, while deciding the above appeal repelled the challenge raised by the assessee regarding vires of Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifical…

M/S Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6474/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High court dated 12.08.2010 an appeal was filed in this court which has been decided by vide its judgment reported in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 7 SCC 421. This Court, while deciding the above appeal repelled the challenge raised by the assessee regarding vires of Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifical…