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

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-CC-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5454/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…

Inductis (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

ITA 5205/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Sahni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ed in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. He is required to do so on the basis of a reasonable and acceptable method of apportionment.” 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT – 394 ITR 449 (SC) thrashed the issue in controversy as to invoking of the provisions contained under Rule 8D of the Rules by observing 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 m…

Inductis (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

ITA 1510/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Sahni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ed in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. He is required to do so on the basis of a reasonable and acceptable method of apportionment.” 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT – 394 ITR 449 (SC) thrashed the issue in controversy as to invoking of the provisions contained under Rule 8D of the Rules by observing 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 m…

Nahar Poly Films Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-7, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1415/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1414 & 1415/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Nahar Poly Films Limited, The Acit, बनाम 376, Industrial Area, Circle 7, Aaykar Bhawan, Ludhiana Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacn5708K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 155JSection 36(1)(iii)

…Ltd 175 ITD 365 (Chd) 2. Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 381 ITR 107 (Pb.) 3. CIT vs. Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (Pb) 4. CIT vs. Max India 398 ITR 209 (Pb) 5. CIT vs. Reliance India Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) 6. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd. vs. DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC) 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there is no legal or factual infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) to interfere with the same. 10. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the Ld.…

Nahar Poly Films Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-7, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1414/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1414 & 1415/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Nahar Poly Films Limited, The Acit, बनाम 376, Industrial Area, Circle 7, Aaykar Bhawan, Ludhiana Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacn5708K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 155JSection 36(1)(iii)

…Ltd 175 ITD 365 (Chd) 2. Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 381 ITR 107 (Pb.) 3. CIT vs. Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (Pb) 4. CIT vs. Max India 398 ITR 209 (Pb) 5. CIT vs. Reliance India Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) 6. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd. vs. DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC) 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there is no legal or factual infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) to interfere with the same. 10. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the Ld.…

Nilkamal Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT Central Cir-1(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2001/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Nilkamal Limited Acit, Cc-1(2) 77/78, Nilkamal House, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Road No. 13, Midc, Old Cgo, Annexe, Andheri (East), M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacn2329N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nditure could be attributed to earning of the exempt dividend income, we think it apt to first cull out the position of law pertaining to the said issue. 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 claim of the assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt dividend income was not to be accepted. It was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex court that sub-section (2) and (3) of Sec. 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D merely prescribe a formul…

Care Ratings Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt, CIT-6(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.1,07,16,645/- made by the A.O u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D is vacated. The Ground of appeal No. 1 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1832/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Care Ratings Limited Asst. Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Godrej Vs. Income Tax-6(2)(1), Coliseum, Somaiya Aayakar Bhavan, Hospital Road, Off Maharishi Karve Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai – 400 020 Sion (East), Mumbai – 400 022 Pan No. Aaacc4587F (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Tejas Sodha, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Tejas Sodha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA No.1832/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 1 Care Ratings Limited Vs. ACIT-6(2)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Care Ratings Limited Asst. Commissioner of 4th Floor, Godrej Vs. Income Tax-6(2)(1), Coliseum, Somaiya Aayakar Bhavan, Hospital Road, Off Maharishi Karve Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai – 400 020 Sion (East), Mumbai – 400 022 PAN No. AAACC4587F (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Tejas Sodha, A.R Revenue by : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date of pronouncement…

Bachhraj & Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the same terms

ITA 7349/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacb5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA Nos. 7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 1 Bachhraj & Company Private Limited Vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.7348 & 7349/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2nd Floor, Vs. of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AAACB5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Kirit Ka…

Bachhraj & Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the same terms

ITA 7348/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacb5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA Nos. 7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 1 Bachhraj & Company Private Limited Vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.7348 & 7349/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2nd Floor, Vs. of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AAACB5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Kirit Ka…

Shardul Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4340/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…for A.Y.2015-16 and 2016-17 in assessee’s own case wherein this Tribunal in ITA Nos.354 & 355/Mum/2020 dated 02/08/2021 by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 394 ITR 449 had held that the ld. AO had failed to record any objective satisfaction as to why the assessee’s stand was not acceptable having regard to the accounts of the assessee as per the mandate of Section 14A of the Act. This Tribunal also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd., reported in 4…

Mrs. Vini Prasad Keni, Panaji vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 351/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri N.J.Prabhudesai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 14A

…elying on the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case passed in ITA Nos.460&461/PAN/2015, order dated 29.03.2016 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 449, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer in both the cases of the assessee. 9. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/10/ 2021. (डॉ मीठा ऱाऱ मीना) (ऱलऱत कुमार) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER पणजी/Panaji;…

Mr. Prasad Vasudev Keni, Panaji vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 350/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri N.J.Prabhudesai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 14A

…elying on the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case passed in ITA Nos.460&461/PAN/2015, order dated 29.03.2016 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 449, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer in both the cases of the assessee. 9. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/10/ 2021. (डॉ मीठा ऱाऱ मीना) (ऱलऱत कुमार) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER पणजी/Panaji;…

Greatship (India ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 7151/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7151/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Greatship (India) Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बिाम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Esplande House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-8542-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Assails Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2017 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-I, Mumbai U/S 144C(5) Dated 28/09/2017. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 28Section 92BSection 92C

…o be vacated. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of the assessee and find substantial force in the same. As observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), it is only after the A.O had recorded his dissatisfaction as regards the correctness of the claim of the assessee that he can thereafter invoke the provisions of Sec.14A(2) and (3) r.w. Rule 8D. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in its aforesaid order had observed as under: “37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could…

Sanjee vs. Mehta, Mumbaivs.ITO, 22(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2830/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifuar Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Mr. Sanjeev S. Mehta Ito - 22(3)(2) 704, Green Gates Perry Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers Bandra (West), Lalbagh, Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No. Aagpm6845D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja, A.R Revenue By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Hari Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154

…ding his satisfaction as regards the correctness of the aforesaid claim of the assessee, having regard to its accounts placed before him. It was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), that it was only after the A.O had recorded his dissatisfaction as regards the correctness of the claim of the assessee that the provisions of Sec.14A(2) and (3) r.w. Rule 8D could be invoked. It was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, as under: “37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken f…

International Cargo Terminals and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6974/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () The Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), M/S International Cargo Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. Terminals & Infrastructure India Building, Nariman Point, Private Limited, Unit No.801, Mumbai – 400 021 Godrej Coliseum, C-Wing, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022 Pan No. Aaacu5182C (Revenue) (Assessee) M/S International Cargo The Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), Terminals & Infrastructure Vs. Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air Private Limited, Unit No.801, India Building, Nariman Point, Godrej Coliseum, C-Wing, Mumbai – 400 021 Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion (East),Mumbai 400 022

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Trivedi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…l Cargo Terminals & Infrastructure P. Ltd. regard, it would be relevant to point out that a principally similar contention was raised by the assessee before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), which however was turned down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. In the said case, it was the claim of the assessee that as tax was already paid on the „dividend‟, though by the payee company, therefore, Sec. 14A could not be triggered for disallowing the expenditure incurred to earn such dividend income, as such dividend income was really not tax…

Dy CIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai vs. M/S International Cargo Terminals & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6892/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () The Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), M/S International Cargo Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. Terminals & Infrastructure India Building, Nariman Point, Private Limited, Unit No.801, Mumbai – 400 021 Godrej Coliseum, C-Wing, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022 Pan No. Aaacu5182C (Revenue) (Assessee) M/S International Cargo The Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), Terminals & Infrastructure Vs. Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air Private Limited, Unit No.801, India Building, Nariman Point, Godrej Coliseum, C-Wing, Mumbai – 400 021 Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion (East),Mumbai 400 022

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Trivedi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…l Cargo Terminals & Infrastructure P. Ltd. regard, it would be relevant to point out that a principally similar contention was raised by the assessee before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), which however was turned down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. In the said case, it was the claim of the assessee that as tax was already paid on the „dividend‟, though by the payee company, therefore, Sec. 14A could not be triggered for disallowing the expenditure incurred to earn such dividend income, as such dividend income was really not tax…

Exlservices.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7392/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Exlservices.Com (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 414, 4Th Floor, Plot No.10 Circle – 1, Nbcc Plaza & 11, Dlp Jasola Tower-B, Pushp Vihar, Dda District Centre, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi - 110025 Pan No. Aaace 5174 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Saksham Singhal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 31.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 155JSection 271(1)(c)

…tisfaction was recorded by the AO having regard to the accounts of the assessee, which is mandatory and for the aforesaid proposition he relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC), Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 - affirmed by Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 and HT Media Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT 399 ITR 576 (Del). He thereafter submitted that on identical facts in A.Y. 2011-12, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal deleted the disallowance by holding that in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the AO with respect…

Ashok Kirtanlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Add. CIT CC-22 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5842/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balalganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ashok Kirtanlal Shah Addl. Cit-Range 19(1) (Presently, Addl, Circle 22(1) 401, 4Th Floor, Anand House, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, 13Th Road, Off. Linking Road, Mumbai 400 012 Khar West, Mumbai – 400 052

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…said contention the ld. A.R had drawn ITA No.5842/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 5 Ashok Kirtanlal Shah Vs. Addl.CIT, Range-19(1) support from the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boys Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. PCIT and Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and that in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). It was, thus, submitted by the ld. A.R that in the backdrop of the aforesaid invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O the disallowance worked out by him u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departm…

Mandava Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 971/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Mandava Holdings Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Pan – Aafcm 4964M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) – 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 09/03/2018 For Ay 2013-14 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Hyderabad, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Is Perverse, Illegal & Unsustainable On Facts & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mandava Holdings Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 16(2), PAN – AAFCM 4964M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date of hearing: 25/08/2021 Date of pronouncement: 27/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) – 4, Hyderabad’s order dated 09/03…

Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-11(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1554/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ]

Section 143(3)

…1 I.T.A. No.1553&1554/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA [ Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (KZ) and Smt. Madhumita Roy, JM ] I.T.A. No.1553&1554/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 TCG Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata PAN: AABCC0401D Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 24/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 27/08/2021 For the Appellant Shri A. K. Tibrewal, AR For the Respondent Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR ORDER Per Smt. Madhumita Roy, JM Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the sepa…