Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT

Shri. Vinod Nevatia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2013–14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…h 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.” Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs DCIT: [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC), observed as under: “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…

Shri. Vinod Nevatia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2013–14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…h 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.” Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs DCIT: [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC), observed as under: “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…

Welspun Steel Ltd. (Successor in Interest to Welspun Energy Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

…e working out the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 11. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT: 394 ITR 449 had observed that it was only after the Assessing Officer had recorded his dissatisfaction as regards the correctness of the claim of the Assessee that the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D could be invoked. It relevant observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court are as under: "37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situat…

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ied out by the Assessing Officer before applying Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, the disallowance of expenditure to earn exempt income cannot be sustained. (d) This issue is no longer res integra as the Apex Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, 394 ITR 449 decided the issue in favour of the respondent. In the above case, the Supreme Court has while considering the issue of disallowing of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income observed as under :- "Whether such determination is to be made on application of the formula prescribed under rule 8D or in the best judgment of the Assessing Officer, wha…

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Savita Oil बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-47 Technologies Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7934A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiro Rai Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Following Grounds Raised By The Assessee Is Neither Being Pressed Nor Does They Survive For The Reasons Given Therein As Under: - “(I) Ground.4- Disallowance U/S 14A In View Of Order Giving Effect To Cit(A) Order & Order U/S 154, Not Pressed Qua Balance Disallowance Of Rs.7,74,722/- (Ii) Ground No. 5 Disallowance As Capital Expenditure Since Depreciation (Ground No.6) Allowed, Not Pressed. (Iii) Ground No. 6 – Allowance Of Depreciation In Order U/S 154, Ao Has Allowed Depreciation. Hence, Does Not Survive.

…as has been brought out above, the present AO could not have turned around and say that AY 1998-99 is the first year of manufacture/production. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd 394 ITR 449. At page 451, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “While it is true that the principle of res judicata would not apply to assessment proceedings under the Act, there is need for consistency and certainty and existence of strong and compelling reasons for a departure from a settled position has to be spelt out.” 11 A.Y. 2008-09 S…