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 367,181 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
Read the full judgment

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

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 217/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A”JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.214 to 216/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Harish Jain cuke PCIT (Central), Vs. 2-PA-8, Vigyan Nagar, Jaipur. Kota-324005. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEHPJ 4764 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2012-13 to 2018-1…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 216/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A”JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.214 to 216/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Harish Jain cuke PCIT (Central), Vs. 2-PA-8, Vigyan Nagar, Jaipur. Kota-324005. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEHPJ 4764 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2012-13 to 2018-1…

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 215/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A”JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.214 to 216/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Harish Jain cuke PCIT (Central), Vs. 2-PA-8, Vigyan Nagar, Jaipur. Kota-324005. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEHPJ 4764 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2012-13 to 2018-1…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 214/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A”JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.214 to 216/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Harish Jain cuke PCIT (Central), Vs. 2-PA-8, Vigyan Nagar, Jaipur. Kota-324005. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEHPJ 4764 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2012-13 to 2018-1…

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd. Mercury 2B Block 6th Floor, Prestige Technology Park Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli Vs. ACIT Ci rcle-2 Bengaluru 566 103 Bengaluru PAN NO : AAACP9993J APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd. Mercury 2B Block 6th Floor, Prestige Tech…

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd. Mercury 2B Block 6th Floor, Prestige Technology Park Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli Vs. ACIT Ci rcle-2 Bengaluru 566 103 Bengaluru PAN NO : AAACP9993J APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd. Mercury 2B Block 6th Floor, Prestige Tech…

Dilip Hari Amdekar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 12(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1303/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1303/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dilip Hari Ambedkar, The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Ambedkar & Associates, Vs Ward-12(2), Pune. Flat No.302, Jai Ravi Appt. Cts No.1002/44, Rajendranagar, Behind Tendulkar Jogging Track, Navi Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aappa 3065 J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, Dated 05.06.2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Ao Of Rs.5,49,458/- U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D (Para 3) 2. The Learned Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate That Separate Books Of Accounts For Business & Investments Were Maintained. 3. The Learned Cit (A) Has Failed To Show That Expenditure Is Incurred By The Assesse For Investment.

Section 14ASection 250

…ecords the satisfaction in regard to the incorrectness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. This recording of satisfaction is a condition precedent in accordance with the law laid down in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co 394 ITR 449 (SC) & Maxopp Investment Ltd 247 CTR 162 (Del); In CIT Vs. Hero Cycle Ltd ( P&B, 323 ITR 518), it was held that “ The expression "expenditure incurred" in s. 14A refers to actual expenditure and not to some imagined expenditure. If no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A” In Maxopp Investme…

Hsbc Software Development (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11, Pune

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2403/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(7)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…tment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT and Another (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). The ld. AR further contended that the observation made by the AO vide para 7.6 of the assessment order does not amount to the satisfaction as envisaged under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14 and thus, ld. AR submits 6 that the AO was not justified in making further disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of recording any satisfa…

Hsbc Software Development (India) Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11, Pune

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2402/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(7)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…tment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT and Another (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). The ld. AR further contended that the observation made by the AO vide para 7.6 of the assessment order does not amount to the satisfaction as envisaged under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14 and thus, ld. AR submits 6 that the AO was not justified in making further disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of recording any satisfa…

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

…ess of the claim of the Assessee that no expenditure has been incurred for earning exempt income and he relied on following case laws for the above contention: (i). Maxopp Investment Limited (402 ITR 640) (SC); (ii). Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (394 ITR 449) (SC); (iii). Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. (ITA No 487 of 2015) (dated 19 September 2017) (Bombay HC) affirmed by SC (98 Taxmann.com 361 (SC); (iv). Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P.) Ltd. (ITA No 34 of 2014); (v). Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (ITA No 1017 of 2017) (Bombay HC); (vi). Tata Industries Limited (ITA 67, 68, 278 and 299/Mum/…

M/S. Ambit Capital Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assesseees’ appeals are allowed except ITA No

ITA 1880/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleambit Capital Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax, Ambit House, 449 Circle 4(1) (1) Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aabcp6621N Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…unsel for the assesseee stated that this decision of the special bench of ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. (supra), is reversed by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) and held the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules as prospective and will apply for and from AY 2008- 09 and thereafter the relevant assessment years falls wherein Rule 8D of the Rules will apply. The learned Counsel for the assesseee drew our attention to Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) and he referr…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 298 & 299/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 cuke Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. ACIT/DCIT, Ltd., Vs. Circle-2, 41, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort, Jaipur. Jaipur-302001. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG8756G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahend…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 298/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 298 & 299/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 cuke Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. ACIT/DCIT, Ltd., Vs. Circle-2, 41, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort, Jaipur. Jaipur-302001. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG8756G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahend…

Jindal Power Limiteed, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incoe Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 199/RPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14ASection 151(1)Section 37

…k down. In support of his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp investment Ltd vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and that in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). Also, the Ld. AR had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd., ITA No. 268/2018 dated 05.07.2018. Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the assessee had during the year 13 Jindal Power Limited Vs. DCIT-1(1) under consideration earned exe…

Neelachal Gramya Bank (Succeeded by Odisha Gramya Bank), Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 72/CTK/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
Section 14ASection 43B

…/- and after reducing the expenses disallowed by the assessee at Rs.34,851/- made an addition of Rs.2,01,724/-. It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC)/(2017) 247 Taxman 361 (SC) as rule 8D has not been brought in effect during the relevant assessment year, no disallowance could be made in the hands of the assessee. 3.2 In reply, ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). It was submitted that the investment in the mutual funds and shares was to an amount of Rs.7,24,58,…

Kirloskar Industries Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -14, Pune

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 524/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 523 & 524/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H.Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 10(34)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…to Para No. 17 that this Tribunal in the case of Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. in ITA No. 74/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT &Anr. reported in 394 ITR 449 (SC) held the disallowance in the absence of any satisfaction by the AO is not maintainable. The ld. AR further referred to Para Nos. 37 and 38 of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and argued that the disallowance made by the AO as confirmed by the CIT(A) is bad under law. The AO discussed the issue at Para No. 3 of the assessment order, on p…

Kirloskar Industries Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -14, Pune

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 523/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 523 & 524/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H.Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 10(34)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…to Para No. 17 that this Tribunal in the case of Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. in ITA No. 74/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT &Anr. reported in 394 ITR 449 (SC) held the disallowance in the absence of any satisfaction by the AO is not maintainable. The ld. AR further referred to Para Nos. 37 and 38 of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and argued that the disallowance made by the AO as confirmed by the CIT(A) is bad under law. The AO discussed the issue at Para No. 3 of the assessment order, on p…

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

ITA 7552/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA: ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Religare Enterprises Income-tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 PAN :AAACV5888N (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross-Objection No.27/Del./2022 ( In ITA No.7552/Del/2018 ) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Religare Enterprises Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., 2nd Floor, Rajlok Income-tax, Circle-21(1), Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110019 PA…

Kumar Properties and Real Estate Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.684/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumar Properties & Real Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Pune. Estate Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Kumar Capital, East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. Pan : Aaack7490H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan R. Vora & Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Promoter & Developer Of The Housing Project. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora &For Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22

…uch a satisfaction, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/ making the investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer’’ 11. The Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 449 (SC) held as follows :- “37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form p…

M/S Praxair India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ltpu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2839/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM IT(TP)A No.2839/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Praxair India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of Mercury 2B Block, 6th Floor Income-tax, Large Tax Payer v. Prestige Technology Park Unit, Circle 1 Bangalore. Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli Bangalore – 560 103. PAN : AAACP9993J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2022 Date of Hearing : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per…