Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT

394 ITR 449Supreme Court of India2017#81 most cited

What is Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Expenditure can only be disallowed under Section 14A if the income is exempt and not part of the total income. The Assessing Officer must first record dissatisfaction with the assessee's accounts or computation before proceeding to make a disallowance under Section 14A or applying Rule 8D.

683

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 14A disallowance · exempt income expenditure · dividend income disallowance · Assessing Officer satisfaction · Rule 8D application · condition precedent for disallowance · income not includible in total income · AO recording dissatisfaction · 394 ITR 449

Also reported as

81 Taxmann.com 11181 Taxmann 111

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 250Section 8DSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)section 14a(2)section 36(1)(viii)dividend distribution taxddtdomestic companyinfrastructure facilitysection 10(34)disallowance under section 14asection 36(1)(vii)put to usedisallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…ected.” (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while dismissing Revenue’s appeal (ITA No. 1106/2017) against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT: 394 ITR 449 (SC) and held as under: “The Revenue’s appeal in this case concerns with the correctness of the ITAT’s order in regard to disallowance under Section 14A (2). The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed certain amounts after rejecting the assessee’s explanation with respect to the statutory disallowance on an application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rul…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…ected.” (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while dismissing Revenue’s appeal (ITA No. 1106/2017) against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT: 394 ITR 449 (SC) and held as under: “The Revenue’s appeal in this case concerns with the correctness of the ITAT’s order in regard to disallowance under Section 14A (2). The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed certain amounts after rejecting the assessee’s explanation with respect to the statutory disallowance on an application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rul…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…ected.” (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while dismissing Revenue’s appeal (ITA No. 1106/2017) against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT: 394 ITR 449 (SC) and held as under: “The Revenue’s appeal in this case concerns with the correctness of the ITAT’s order in regard to disallowance under Section 14A (2). The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed certain amounts after rejecting the assessee’s explanation with respect to the statutory disallowance on an application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rul…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1783/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

…whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (394 ITR 449) (SC) upholding that the Supreme Court has not diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case that DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and domestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Ag…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1782/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…to whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (394 ITR 449) (SC) upholding that the Supreme Court has not diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case that DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and domestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agr…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1781/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…to whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (394 ITR 449) (SC) upholding that the Supreme Court has not diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case that DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and domestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agr…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1780/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…to whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (394 ITR 449) (SC) upholding that the Supreme Court has not diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case that DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and domestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agr…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1779/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\Nita No(S). 1776 To 1783/Kol/2024\N Assessment Year(S) 2008-09 To 2015-16\Nphilips India Limited.\N1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

…her it\nis a tax on the company or a shareholder.\n2. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in\nthe case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT\n[2017] (394 ITR 449) (SC) upholding that the Supreme Court has\nnot diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case\nthat DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and\ndomestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder.\n3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin holding that the Double Taxation Avoidanc…

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 1778/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

…whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (394 ITR 449) (SC) upholding that the Supreme Court has not diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case that DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and domestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agr…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1777/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…to whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (394 ITR 449) (SC) upholding that the Supreme Court has not diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case that DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and domestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agr…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1776/KOL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\Nita No(S). 1776 To 1783/Kol/2024\N Assessment Year(S) 2008-09 To 2015-16\Nphilips India Limited.\N“1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

…her it\nis a tax on the company or a shareholder.\n2. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in\nthe case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT\n[2017] (394 ITR 449) (SC) upholding that the Supreme Court has\nnot diluted the reasoning of Bombay High Court in the said case\nthat DDT is a tax on the Company paying the dividend and\ndomestic company does not do so on behalf of the shareholder.\n3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin holding that the Double Taxation Avoidanc…

NIPUN MALHOTRA,MANDI vs. ITO, WARD, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 81/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nipun Malhotra, The Ito, 135/A, Jawahar Nagar, Vs Ward, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Mandi (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ablpm6589N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ight Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) A.Y.2013-14 5 e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 6. The assessee has demonstrated that it has more interest free funds than the advances given to three individuals without ch…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. TRENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5244/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit Trent Limited, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar G-Block, Plot No. C Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 60 Trent House, Mumbai-400 020 Beside City Bank Bandra K Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl1838J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DCIT Trent Limited, 552, 5th Floor, Aayakar G-Block, Plot No. C Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 60 Trent House, Mumbai-400 020 Beside City Bank Bandra K Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. AAACL1838J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. DR Assessee by Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ld. AR Date of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: These are two appeals preferred by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2018…

M/S KNITWELL INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1609/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1609/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2014-15 M/S Knitwell India Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Plot No. 278, Industrial Area, Vs Circle 1(1), Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacck4673L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 O R D E R Physical Hearing Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) i) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 These decisions are on the same line, therefore, no disallowance deserves to be upheld except a sum of Rs.1,42,842/- which is an amount representing administrative expenses for taking care…

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6083/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Sondagar, CA
Section 11SSection 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2020-21 ACIT K Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan, BKC Plot No. C-30, Block-G, Raheja Vs. Mumbai-400051. Tower, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AAACP 0522 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Paresh Sondagar, CA Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR : 25/11/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 22/01/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Ld…

KUNTAL HASMUKHLAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8360/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkuntal Hasmukhlal Shah Acit-4(1)(1) 104, 1St Floor, Plot No. 53, Aayakar Bhawan, Panchsheel, P. M. Shukla Vs. Churchgate, Marg, C-Road, Mumbai-400 020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aagps5867F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashok Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…and the earning of exempt income. 6. The learned CIT(A), however, did not accept the contentions of the assessee. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640) and Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (394 ITR 449), as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (370 ITR 338), the learned CIT(A) held that section 14A applies even where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to exempt income. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 13,76,621/- made un…

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

ITA 4305/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ions in cases of Parsuram Pottery Works Co Ltd vs ITO 106 ITR 1; Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321; CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd 358 ITR 295 (three judge bench); Shasun Chemical & Drugs Lid vs CIT 388 ITR 1; Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd vs DCIT 394 ITR 449; PCIT vs Maruti Suzuki ltd 416 ITR 1). Nothing prevented revenue to hold in purchase year and later on that assessee trust has not bonafidely purchased held subject immovable property for "charitable" purposes of trust. Having missed though out, to take "impromptu" adverse decision in instant sale year is totally unsustainable 7. PROPOSITION 3: L…

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

ITA 5417/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…17/Del/2017 along with other cases Officer would make any disallowance untenable in the eyes of law. We have noted from the impugned assessment order that recording of any such satisfaction is missing. In the case of Godrez & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. 394 ITR 449, Hon’ble Apex Court has held it is imperative for the AO to establish that based upon the accounts of the assessee, the disallowance made under section 14A by it is unacceptable. The impugned principle has been followed by this Tribunal in its decision in the case of Hindustan Times Ltd. Vide ITA No.1629/Del/2012 dated 31.01.2024. Accordingly, th…

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

ITA 5416/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…17/Del/2017 along with other cases Officer would make any disallowance untenable in the eyes of law. We have noted from the impugned assessment order that recording of any such satisfaction is missing. In the case of Godrez & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. 394 ITR 449, Hon’ble Apex Court has held it is imperative for the AO to establish that based upon the accounts of the assessee, the disallowance made under section 14A by it is unacceptable. The impugned principle has been followed by this Tribunal in its decision in the case of Hindustan Times Ltd. Vide ITA No.1629/Del/2012 dated 31.01.2024. Accordingly, th…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY vs. DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LTD., DALMIAPURAM

ITA 3158/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…17/Del/2017 along with other cases Officer would make any disallowance untenable in the eyes of law. We have noted from the impugned assessment order that recording of any such satisfaction is missing. In the case of Godrez & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. 394 ITR 449, Hon’ble Apex Court has held it is imperative for the AO to establish that based upon the accounts of the assessee, the disallowance made under section 14A by it is unacceptable. The impugned principle has been followed by this Tribunal in its decision in the case of Hindustan Times Ltd. Vide ITA No.1629/Del/2012 dated 31.01.2024. Accordingly, th…

Showing 1–20 of 683 · Page 1 of 35

...