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

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1958/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…upreme Court while affirming the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay and the Delhi High Court have repeatedly emphasized on the requirement of recording satisfaction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs DCIT, 394 ITR 449 (SC), while affirming the aforesaid decision, held that recording of satisfaction under Section 14A(2) is of paramount importance, failing which the provisions of Rule 8D, applicable from Assessment Year 2008-09 or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing till assessment year 2007-08, cannot be applied. It was held, likewise, by the H…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1957/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…upreme Court while affirming the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay and the Delhi High Court have repeatedly emphasized on the requirement of recording satisfaction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs DCIT, 394 ITR 449 (SC), while affirming the aforesaid decision, held that recording of satisfaction under Section 14A(2) is of paramount importance, failing which the provisions of Rule 8D, applicable from Assessment Year 2008-09 or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing till assessment year 2007-08, cannot be applied. It was held, likewise, by the H…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1956/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…upreme Court while affirming the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay and the Delhi High Court have repeatedly emphasized on the requirement of recording satisfaction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs DCIT, 394 ITR 449 (SC), while affirming the aforesaid decision, held that recording of satisfaction under Section 14A(2) is of paramount importance, failing which the provisions of Rule 8D, applicable from Assessment Year 2008-09 or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing till assessment year 2007-08, cannot be applied. It was held, likewise, by the H…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1955/DEL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…upreme Court while affirming the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay and the Delhi High Court have repeatedly emphasized on the requirement of recording satisfaction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs DCIT, 394 ITR 449 (SC), while affirming the aforesaid decision, held that recording of satisfaction under Section 14A(2) is of paramount importance, failing which the provisions of Rule 8D, applicable from Assessment Year 2008-09 or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing till assessment year 2007-08, cannot be applied. It was held, likewise, by the H…

M/S. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 5794/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 3Section 80I

…AO has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D (ia) to record his satisfaction, question of applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) does not arise. 13. 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 8 ITA No.5794/Del./2016 read w…

Trent Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl. C.I.T.-2(3), Mumbai

ITA 5775/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 35DSection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Trent Ltd., v. Add. CIT – 2(3) Bombay House, 2nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACL1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. CIT – 2(3) v. M/s. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5th Floor Bombay House, 2nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACL1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Trent Ltd., v. Dy. CIT – 2(3) Bombay House, 2nd Floor, 24 Aa…

S. Ganesh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2024/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…ing the computation mechanism in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. The assessee in person at the time of hearing placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court:- Shri S. Ganesh. (a) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 394 ITR 449 (SC) by drawing specific reference to para No.37 & 38 of the said judgment. (b) CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 326 ITR 1 (SC) by drawing specific attention to last 8 lines of the said judgment in page 17 of the said judgement. (c) Maxopp Investments Company Ltd., reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) by drawing specific att…

Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Earlier Known As M/S.Abacus International Pte Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4968/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4968/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Sabre Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. (Earlier Known As M/S Abacus International Pte Ltd.), Abacus Plaza, 3 Tampines Central I, 117, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard बिधम/ # 08-01 Singapore 529540 Estate, Mumbai 400 038. Vs. C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp India Bulls Financial Centre Tower 3, 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W),Mumbai-400 013. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabca6590M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari, D.R
Section 143(3)

…ee for the aforementioned earlier years, therefore, following the principle of consistency as had been emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhsoami Satsang Vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) and Godrej & Boyce Manufacture Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) (394 ITR 449) (SC), finding no reason to take a different view, follow the same. Before parting, we may herein observe that we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the ld. D.R that the adhoc adoption of 15% of the gross receipts of the assessee as its income attributable to India operations as observed by the Tribunal in the case of Galileo Internati…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asahi India Glass Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2501/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2501 /Del./2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) DCIT, Circle 2 (1), vs. M/s. Asahi India Glass Limited, New Delhi. 12, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. (PAN : AADCA7706R) ITA Nos.1638/Del./2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/s. Asahi India Glass Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 2 (1), 12, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AADCA7706R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Senior…

M/S. Asahi India Glass Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1638/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2501 /Del./2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) DCIT, Circle 2 (1), vs. M/s. Asahi India Glass Limited, New Delhi. 12, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. (PAN : AADCA7706R) ITA Nos.1638/Del./2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/s. Asahi India Glass Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 2 (1), 12, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AADCA7706R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Senior…

Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3041/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)

…also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove.” 6.2. On the contrary Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance upon the orders passed by authorities below and following decisions: " Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 (SC); " India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2016) 76 Taxmann.com 268 (Del); " Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2017) 78 Taxmann.com 65 (P&H). 7. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 8. It is observed that decisions relied upon by Ld. Sr. DR has bee…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2954/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)

…also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove.” 6.2. On the contrary Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance upon the orders passed by authorities below and following decisions: " Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 (SC); " India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2016) 76 Taxmann.com 268 (Del); " Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2017) 78 Taxmann.com 65 (P&H). 7. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 8. It is observed that decisions relied upon by Ld. Sr. DR has bee…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6603/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6602/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-12(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci5194F

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT DR
Section 14A

…- Trib.) where Hon’ble ITAT Amritsar held that Section 14A would apply even if no dividend was earned by assessee from investments in shares. 5. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC)/[2017] 247Taxman361 (SC)/[2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC)/[2017] 295 CTR 121 (SC) where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where Assessing Officer after carrying out elaborate analysis and following steps enacted in statute, had determined amount of expenditure incurred for earning tax ITA Nos. 6602 & 6603/Del/2016 7 Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd. & Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. exempt income, me…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6602/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6602/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-12(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci5194F

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT DR
Section 14A

…- Trib.) where Hon’ble ITAT Amritsar held that Section 14A would apply even if no dividend was earned by assessee from investments in shares. 5. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC)/[2017] 247Taxman361 (SC)/[2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC)/[2017] 295 CTR 121 (SC) where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where Assessing Officer after carrying out elaborate analysis and following steps enacted in statute, had determined amount of expenditure incurred for earning tax ITA Nos. 6602 & 6603/Del/2016 7 Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd. & Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. exempt income, me…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…ome Tax Rules comes into play for the purpose of quantification of disallowance of expenditure pertaining to an assessee’s exempt income. The same applies from assessment year(s) 2008-09 onwards as held in Godrej & Boyee Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) upholding hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision to this effect. Coming to assessee’s dividend income, case file(s) suggests that it had declared suo motu expenses of ₹10.11, ₹12.04 & 15.07 (lakhs); assessment year-wise respectively. The Assessing Officer’s corresponding regular assessment disallowed proportionate interest as well as administr…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…ome Tax Rules comes into play for the purpose of quantification of disallowance of expenditure pertaining to an assessee’s exempt income. The same applies from assessment year(s) 2008-09 onwards as held in Godrej & Boyee Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) upholding hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision to this effect. Coming to assessee’s dividend income, case file(s) suggests that it had declared suo motu expenses of ₹10.11, ₹12.04 & 15.07 (lakhs); assessment year-wise respectively. The Assessing Officer’s corresponding regular assessment disallowed proportionate interest as well as administr…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 217/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…ome Tax Rules comes into play for the purpose of quantification of disallowance of expenditure pertaining to an assessee’s exempt income. The same applies from assessment year(s) 2008-09 onwards as held in Godrej & Boyee Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) upholding hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision to this effect. Coming to assessee’s dividend income, case file(s) suggests that it had declared suo motu expenses of ₹10.11, ₹12.04 & 15.07 (lakhs); assessment year-wise respectively. The Assessing Officer’s corresponding regular assessment disallowed proportionate interest as well as administr…

Kjmc Corporate Advisors (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-3(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1512/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkjmc Corporate Advisors (India) Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(2)(3), Pvt. Ltd, 162, 16Th Floor, Atlanta, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Nahta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ffered by the assessee in its return of income was not to be accepted, had most erroneously dislodged the same. It was averred by the ld. A.R that as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Ltd. VS. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the A.O as per the mandate of law was obligated to arrive at a satisfaction that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, as placed before him, it was not possible for him to generate the requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee. It wa…

Asst CIT(Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4704/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanaditya Birla Nuvo Limited, A4, Aditya Birla Center, S.K.Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaaci 1747H ...... Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ltu-1 World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. ..... Respondent Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ltu-1 World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. ..... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Jahangir D. Mistri/For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 8D(2)

…of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income earned. In support of his contentions, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. vs DCIT,394 ITR 449(SC) (2) PCIT vs. Bajaj Finance Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.237 of 2017 decided on 02/04 2019 by the Hon’ble Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 3.2 The second argument raised by the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee against disallowance under section 14A of the Act was that own funds of the assessee comprising of share capital, reserves and…

M/S. Taurus Home Furnishings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6344/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6344/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Taurus Home Furnishings Ltd. Vs Acit, P-65 South Extension- Ii, Circle-25 (1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct3484A Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing:23.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…cogent reasons. Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer has to be arrived at, having 7 Taurus Home Furnishings Ltd. regard to the accounts of the assessed as enunciated in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC) and Godrej Boyce v DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). 15. From the records or from the arguments of the ld. DR, we find that the invocation of sub-Section (2) of Section 14A is conspicuously absent and hence re-computation of the disallowance is not legally valid. And considering the investments in mutual funds and in shares are through PMS, hardly any expense is incurred. As such the estimat…