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

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

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

ITA 1272/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

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
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…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, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

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

ITA 1078/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

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
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…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, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

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

ITA 1077/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

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
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…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, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

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

ITA 1076/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

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
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…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. JCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 1063/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

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
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…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. JCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 1062/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

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
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…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. JCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 1061/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

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
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…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. JCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 1060/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

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
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…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. JCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 1059/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

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
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…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…

Shriram Retail Holdings Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1252/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ceptable. Without recording such a finding, no disallowance could be made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. It is settled legal position that the application of Rule 8D is not automatic as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT (2017 394 ITR 449). Upon perusal of assessment order, we find that Ld. AO has failed to record any objective satisfaction as to why the assessee’s stand was not acceptable having regards to the accounts of the assessee as per the mandate of Sec.14A. This jurisdictional requirement was not satisfied by Ld. AO in the present case and Ld.AO straightway proceeded to c…

M/S Corporation Bank, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1678/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 40a

…s not recorded dissatisfaction over the disallowance made by the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) accepted the said contentions by taking support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd Vs. DCIT (2017) (81 Taxmann 111) (SC). Accordingly, he observed that it is mandatory for the AO to record dissatisfaction over the claim of the ITA No.1678/Bang/2018 & ITA No.234/PAN/2018 Union Bank of India, Mumbai Page 14 of 17 assessee before invoking the provisions of Rule 8D. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the disallowance holding that the AO has not recorded dissat…

Dcm Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

ITA 603/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT, C.A. No. 9606/2011 decided on 09.09.2021 - Supreme Court • CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) • Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) • Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) • HT Media Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2017) 399 ITR 576(Del); • CIT v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 159 (Del); • CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Del); CIT Vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del.) • The Nashik Road Deolali Vyapari Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA No. 312/2016 decided on 16.09.2021 - ITAT Pune…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Dcm Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 183/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT, C.A. No. 9606/2011 decided on 09.09.2021 - Supreme Court • CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC) • Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) • Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) • HT Media Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2017) 399 ITR 576(Del); • CIT v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 159 (Del); • CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Del); CIT Vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 502 (Del.) • The Nashik Road Deolali Vyapari Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA No. 312/2016 decided on 16.09.2021 - ITAT Pune…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…ned principles are reproduced hereunder: • The legal principle and ratio is no longer res integra and is settled by the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2017] 394 ITR 449(SC) wherein it was held that: "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 BD of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not f…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…ned principles are reproduced hereunder: • The legal principle and ratio is no longer res integra and is settled by the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2017] 394 ITR 449(SC) wherein it was held that: "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 BD of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not f…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…ned principles are reproduced hereunder: • The legal principle and ratio is no longer res integra and is settled by the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2017] 394 ITR 449(SC) wherein it was held that: "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 BD of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not f…

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [DELHI BENCH “I–1”: NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 706/Del/2021 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) M/s. Hero Moto Corp. Ltd., National The Grand Plaza, Plot No. 2, Vs. Nelson Mandela Road, e-Assessment Centre, Vasant Kunj, Phase – II, New Delhi – 110 070. Delhi. PAN: AAACH0812J AND STAY APP. No. 127/Del/2021. [ in ITA. No. 706/Del/2021 ] (Assessment Year : 2016-17) M/s. Hero Moto Corp. Ltd., National The Grand Plaza, Plot No. 2, Nelson Mandela Road, Vs. e-Assessment Centre, Vasant…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi vs. Worlds Window Infrastructure and Logistics P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1123/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Nand Kishore Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37Section 80I

…ear under consideration and as such, no disallowance can be made. 15. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. – ITA No.486/3024 & ITA No.299/2014 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT – 394 ITR 449 (SC) have categorically held that, “when the assessee has not earned any dividend income forming part of the total income during the year under consideration, section 14A read with Rule 8D is not attracted.” Consequently, we find no scope to interfere into the deletion of disallowance made by the ld. CIT (A) u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. So, gro…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi vs. Worlds Window Infrastructure and Logistics P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1122/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Nand Kishore Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37Section 80I

…ear under consideration and as such, no disallowance can be made. 15. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. – ITA No.486/3024 & ITA No.299/2014 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT – 394 ITR 449 (SC) have categorically held that, “when the assessee has not earned any dividend income forming part of the total income during the year under consideration, section 14A read with Rule 8D is not attracted.” Consequently, we find no scope to interfere into the deletion of disallowance made by the ld. CIT (A) u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. So, gro…

DCIT-CC.3(3), Central Range-3 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6094/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Oricon Enterprises Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Cc-3(3),Mumbai Vs. 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Nahta, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…diction and dislodged the assessee‟s claim of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, we think it apt to first cull out the position of law as regards the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) had, inter alia, held, that the A.O is obligated to mention the reasons while concluding that the assessee‟s claim of disallowance of M/s Oricon Enerprises Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai 8 Dy. CIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai Vs. M/s Oricon Enterprises Ltd. ITA Nos. 5454 & 6094/Mum/2019 – A.Y 2016-17 expenditure incurred to earn the exempt dividend…