Godrej &amp; Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT

ITA 403/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George Mathan, JM & Shri Ramit Kochar, AM ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 400/Coch/2020 2010-11 M/s.SFO Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner 401/Coch/2020 2012-13 XIX/346, Stone House, of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(1), Aluva, 402/Coch/2020 2013-14 Ernakulam-683101 3rd Floor, C R Building I.S. Press Road, Kochi- 403/Coch/2020 2014-15 [PAN: AADCS3318K] 682018 404/Coch/2020 2016-17 Appellant by: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR Respondent by: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma Date of Hearing: 22.02.2022& 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.0…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma

ITA 402/COCH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George Mathan, JM & Shri Ramit Kochar, AM ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 400/Coch/2020 2010-11 M/s.SFO Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner 401/Coch/2020 2012-13 XIX/346, Stone House, of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(1), Aluva, 402/Coch/2020 2013-14 Ernakulam-683101 3rd Floor, C R Building I.S. Press Road, Kochi- 403/Coch/2020 2014-15 [PAN: AADCS3318K] 682018 404/Coch/2020 2016-17 Appellant by: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR Respondent by: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma Date of Hearing: 22.02.2022& 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.0…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma

ITA 401/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George Mathan, JM & Shri Ramit Kochar, AM ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 400/Coch/2020 2010-11 M/s.SFO Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner 401/Coch/2020 2012-13 XIX/346, Stone House, of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(1), Aluva, 402/Coch/2020 2013-14 Ernakulam-683101 3rd Floor, C R Building I.S. Press Road, Kochi- 403/Coch/2020 2014-15 [PAN: AADCS3318K] 682018 404/Coch/2020 2016-17 Appellant by: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR Respondent by: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma Date of Hearing: 22.02.2022& 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.0…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Ernakulam

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma

ITA 400/COCH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George Mathan, JM & Shri Ramit Kochar, AM ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 400/Coch/2020 2010-11 M/s.SFO Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner 401/Coch/2020 2012-13 XIX/346, Stone House, of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(1), Aluva, 402/Coch/2020 2013-14 Ernakulam-683101 3rd Floor, C R Building I.S. Press Road, Kochi- 403/Coch/2020 2014-15 [PAN: AADCS3318K] 682018 404/Coch/2020 2016-17 Appellant by: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR Respondent by: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma Date of Hearing: 22.02.2022& 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.0…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George Mathan, JM & Shri Ramit Kochar, AM ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 400/Coch/2020 2010-11 M/s.SFO Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner 401/Coch/2020 2012-13 XIX/346, Stone House, of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(1), Aluva, 402/Coch/2020 2013-14 Ernakulam-683101 3rd Floor, C R Building I.S. Press Road, Kochi- 403/Coch/2020 2014-15 [PAN: AADCS3318K] 682018 404/Coch/2020 2016-17 Appellant by: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR Respondent by: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma Date of Hearing: 22.02.2022& 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.0…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri

Section 14ASection 35

…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…

Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 5992/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16 Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 110, Babar Road, Special Range-5, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacj0719Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…in respect of some of the investments. He submitted that out of 26 investments, the assessee has received dividend only on 6 investments. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in 394 ITR 449, he submitted that the provisions of section 14A would apply to dividend income on which tax is payable u/s 115O of the IT Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank vs. CIT, 4 reported in 130 taxmann.com 178, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that where int…

Jindal Export & Import (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5991/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Jindal Export & Import (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, 110, Babar Road, Circle-13(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacj0474G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted and appeal of the appellant company be allowed.” 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in 394 ITR 449, submitted that the provisions of section 14A would apply to dividend income on which tax is payable u/s 115O of the IT Act. He submitted that the assessee, in the instant case, has given reasons as to why the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D should not be applied. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) being not in accordance with the law, should…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7578/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv., Sh.Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Sarita Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 254

…me which does not form part of the total income under the Act. He submitted that there is no satisfaction by the AO. He further submitted that in the light of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd. vs DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC) and the judgement in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC). Further, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Coforge Ltd. vs ACIT 436 ITR 546 (Del.) & H.T.Media Ltd. vs PCIT 399 ITR 576 (Del.) in support of contention that if the satisfaction is not recorded, no disallowance can…

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 146/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)

ITA 145/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

…laim of the assessee that, no expenditure was incurred in respect of these investments cannot be accepted. The action of the Assessing Officer is against the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co., Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 (SC), wherein it is held that, unless a ITA No.143 - 146/Bang/2021 Page 28 of 31 satisfaction is recorded no disallowance could have been made U/s.14A of the Act. 72. The ld.DR submitted that the disallowance of Rs. 22,04,380/- u/s 14A r.w. r. 8D. Perusal of assessment order shows that the assessee made long term investment in equity sha…

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)

ITA 144/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

…laim of the assessee that, no expenditure was incurred in respect of these investments cannot be accepted. The action of the Assessing Officer is against the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co., Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 (SC), wherein it is held that, unless a ITA No.143 - 146/Bang/2021 Page 28 of 31 satisfaction is recorded no disallowance could have been made U/s.14A of the Act. 72. The ld.DR submitted that the disallowance of Rs. 22,04,380/- u/s 14A r.w. r. 8D. Perusal of assessment order shows that the assessee made long term investment in equity sha…

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)

ITA 143/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

…laim of the assessee that, no expenditure was incurred in respect of these investments cannot be accepted. The action of the Assessing Officer is against the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co., Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 (SC), wherein it is held that, unless a ITA No.143 - 146/Bang/2021 Page 28 of 31 satisfaction is recorded no disallowance could have been made U/s.14A of the Act. 72. The ld.DR submitted that the disallowance of Rs. 22,04,380/- u/s 14A r.w. r. 8D. Perusal of assessment order shows that the assessee made long term investment in equity sha…

Tanglin Developments Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jairam Raipura, CIT(DR OSD)

ITA/1001/2017HC Karnataka28 Jan 2022

…laim of the assessee that, no expenditure was incurred in respect of these investments cannot be accepted. The action of the Assessing Officer is against the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co., Ltd V. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 (SC), wherein it is held that, unless a ITA No.143 - 146/Bang/2021 Page 28 of 31 satisfaction is recorded no disallowance could have been made U/s.14A of the Act. 72. The ld.DR submitted that the disallowance of Rs. 22,04,380/- u/s 14A r.w. r. 8D. Perusal of assessment order shows that the assessee made long term investment in equity sha…

Essilor India Pvt Ltd vs. The Deputy

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR I.T.A. NO.1001 OF 2017 BETWEEN: ESSILOR INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.71/1, BRIGADE PLAZA 6TH FLOOR S.C. ROAD GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. J. SHIVKUMAR PAN:AAACE4623J. .... APPELLANT (BY MR. SURYANARAYANA T, SR. COUNSEL FOR MRS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 3 (1) (2) BENGALURU RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN 6TH FLOOR NURPATHUNGA R…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 967/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

ITA 947/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

…pect of such expenditure, which does not form part of the total income. 20. The learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [reported in (2017) 394 ITR 449] wherein it has been held as follows : “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…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

ITA 1883/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

…pect of such expenditure, which does not form part of the total income. 20. The learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [reported in (2017) 394 ITR 449] wherein it has been held as follows : “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…

ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR

ITA 1846/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

…pect of such expenditure, which does not form part of the total income. 20. The learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [reported in (2017) 394 ITR 449] wherein it has been held as follows : “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…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR