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

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 4200/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 1991 193 ITR 321– Hon’ble Supreme Court (iii) CIT V/s Darius Pandole- 2010 330 ITR 485- Hon’ble Bombay High Court Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 5.3 Upon due consideration, we are inclined to accept the argument that the whole exercise of d…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 4199/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 1991 193 ITR 321– Hon’ble Supreme Court (iii) CIT V/s Darius Pandole- 2010 330 ITR 485- Hon’ble Bombay High Court Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 5.3 Upon due consideration, we are inclined to accept the argument that the whole exercise of d…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 4198/MUM/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 1991 193 ITR 321– Hon’ble Supreme Court (iii) CIT V/s Darius Pandole- 2010 330 ITR 485- Hon’ble Bombay High Court Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 5.3 Upon due consideration, we are inclined to accept the argument that the whole exercise of d…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 6979/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 1991 193 ITR 321– Hon’ble Supreme Court (iii) CIT V/s Darius Pandole- 2010 330 ITR 485- Hon’ble Bombay High Court Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 5.3 Upon due consideration, we are inclined to accept the argument that the whole exercise of d…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 6978/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 1991 193 ITR 321– Hon’ble Supreme Court (iii) CIT V/s Darius Pandole- 2010 330 ITR 485- Hon’ble Bombay High Court Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 5.3 Upon due consideration, we are inclined to accept the argument that the whole exercise of d…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 6977/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 1991 193 ITR 321– Hon’ble Supreme Court (iii) CIT V/s Darius Pandole- 2010 330 ITR 485- Hon’ble Bombay High Court Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 5.3 Upon due consideration, we are inclined to accept the argument that the whole exercise of d…

M/S. Unitech Infra- Con Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6679/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

…(A). He also placed reliance on the following precedents. 1. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. vs. DICT [2016] 76 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi) 2. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC)/[2014] 247 Taxman 361 (SC)/[2017] 394 ITR 449(SC)/[2017] 295 CTR 121 (SC) 3. Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs. CIT [2017-TIOL-353-HC-P&H-IT] 4. Avon Cycles Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 53 taxmann.com 297 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 228 Taxman 368 (Punjab & Harayana)(MAG.) 5. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 154 (Punjab & Haryana). 6. Dy. CIT vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd. 156 ITD 72/46 ITR 626/…

Van Oord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 720/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Nishant Thakkar, RishiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, D.R
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 28Section 43CSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 92C(4)Section 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.720/MUM/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Van Oord India Private Limited v. Dy. CIT 201, 2nd Floor, Central Plaza Range 5(3) 166, C.S.T. Road Mumbai Mumbai TAN/PAN:AAACH5430J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri Nishant Thakkar, Rishi Kapadia, Hiten Chande, Jairajesh Nadar and Bhakti Maru, A.Rs Revenue by: Shri Rajeev Harit, D.R. Date of hearing: 26 09 2019 Date of pronouncement: 11 11 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal agains…

Ambit Capital Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT, Circle -4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5673/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad (Jm) & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ambit Capital Pvt. Ltd. The Additional Commissioner Ambit House, 449, Senapati Of Income Tax Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Circle-4(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M. Vs. Mumbai- 400013 K. Road, Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Aab Cp6 621 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri S. Michael Jerald (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/11/2019

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)

…ounsel for the assessee stated that this decision of the special bench of ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. (supra), is reversed by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) and held the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules as prospective and will apply for and from AY 2008-09 and thereafter the relevant assessment years falls wherein Rule 8D of the Rules will apply. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) and he referred…

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2006-07 in ITA No

ITA 5616/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri M Balaganesh, Am & Sri Ravish Sood, Jm & आयकर अपीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 5616/Mum/2012 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2005-06) आयकर अपीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 4043/Mum/2012 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2006-07) Tata Steel Limited Assistant Commissioner Bombay House, 24 Homi Body Of Income Tax-2(3), Street, Fort, Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Mumbai-400 001 Income Tax-2(3) Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीऱार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी ऱेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaact2803M आयकर अपीऱ सुं./ Ita No. 5573/Mum/2012 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2005-06) Assistant Commissioner Of Tata Steel Limited Income Tax-2(3), Bombay House, 24 Homi Dy. Commissioner Of Body Street, Fort, बनाम/ Mumbai-400 001 Income Tax-2(3) Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीऱार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…in sum of ₹ 11.18 crores under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. 17. We find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) and Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd vs. DCIT reported in [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) had observed that the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules could be made applicable only from AY 2008-09 onwards. Hence, there cannot be any disallowance under section 14A of the Act by applying the computation maximum provided in Rule 8D of the Rules for the year under consideration. We find from the perusal of the bala…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd, Pune

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

ITA 287/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.287/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment year : 2011-12 The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. अपीलाथ" / Central Circle 1(1), Pune. Appellant. बनाम v/s Dhariwal Industries Ltd., ………. ""यथ" / Manikchand House, Plot No.100/101, Respondent D. Kennedy Road, Behid Hotel Le Meradien, Pune – 411 001. PAN : AAACD5896L. Assessee by : None. Revenue by : Shri S.B. Prasad. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 17.1…

Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5938/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas
Section 2Section 255(4)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 45Section 47Section 50Section 55(2)(ab)

…cepted and the total cost of acquisition of membership card is required to be allowed to the assessee as the cost of acquisition of the shares. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decisions in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 449 and CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274, wherein the Court has held that literal interpretation has to be adopted in interpreting the taxing statute when there is no question of any ambiguity on the interpretation of the provisions. It was argued that on facts, 8 Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. there is no ambiguity on interpretation of Section…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune vs. Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1664/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1664/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Madhavan Amk
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14A

…g the formula prescribed under Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules. It is an undisputed fact that the year under consideration is A.Y. 2007-08. We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Vs. DCIT reported in (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) has held that provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable prior to A.Y. 2008-09. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that Ld.CIT(A) was fully justified in holding that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made by following the formula prescribed under Rule 8D of the Act. We further find that Ld.CIT(A) after relying on the variou…

Manoj Vasudev Wadhwa, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-37, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-13(3)(3), Room No. Manoj Vashudevwadhwa, 227, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 11, Happy Home, 244, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Waterfield Road, Bandra Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manoj Vashudevwadhwa, Acit Cc 37 11, Happy Home, 244, Vs. Aayakarbahvan, Mumbai. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms.JothilakshmiNayak, DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…isallowance made by the AO in an objective manner. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom) [paras 70 and 71 at pages 120 and 121 of the Report] and Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC) [para 37 at page 471 of the Report]. It is stated by him that in the present case the assessee has followed the formula laid down in Rule 8D and applied the same to the average value of investment. Thus it is stated that in these circumstances, the dissatisfaction, if any, as recorded by the AO has no objective basis and if this proposition…

Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Vasudev Wadhwa, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 326/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-13(3)(3), Room No. Manoj Vashudevwadhwa, 227, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 11, Happy Home, 244, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Waterfield Road, Bandra Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manoj Vashudevwadhwa, Acit Cc 37 11, Happy Home, 244, Vs. Aayakarbahvan, Mumbai. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aalpw0303K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms.JothilakshmiNayak, DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…isallowance made by the AO in an objective manner. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom) [paras 70 and 71 at pages 120 and 121 of the Report] and Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC) [para 37 at page 471 of the Report]. It is stated by him that in the present case the assessee has followed the formula laid down in Rule 8D and applied the same to the average value of investment. Thus it is stated that in these circumstances, the dissatisfaction, if any, as recorded by the AO has no objective basis and if this proposition…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 2248/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charym/S Gujarat Guardian Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle – 10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, New Delhi. New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234ASection 234B

…the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in the appeal preferred against the findings of theTribunal on this aspect for the Asstt. year 2009-10, while noticing the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs DCIT, 394 ITR 449 upheld the finding of the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. 14. The Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High Court thought it fit not to sustain the addition made by invoking Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules based on the binding precedent of the Apex court in the case of Godrej& Boyce Manufacturing Ltd. (supra), which…

Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2545/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri NS JangpangiFor Respondent: Shri S.E.Dastur, AR
Section 143(3)Section 401A(9)Section 40A(9)

…venue by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). However, this issue also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC). As this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue, hence, we delete the disallowance only on the issue of non-recording of satisfaction for invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Hence, this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 13. The next issue in this appeal of as…

DCIT CC 6(1) (Earlier CC-34), Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1757/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri NS JangpangiFor Respondent: Shri S.E.Dastur, AR
Section 143(3)Section 401A(9)Section 40A(9)

…venue by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). However, this issue also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC). As this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue, hence, we delete the disallowance only on the issue of non-recording of satisfaction for invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Hence, this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 13. The next issue in this appeal of as…

Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1175/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Mr. M. Balaganesh & Mr. Ravish Soodtata Capital Limited Asst. Commissioner Of One Forbes, Income Tax -2(3), Vs. Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 1 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aadcp9147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit-2(3)(1), M/S Tata Capital Ltd. R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Peninsula Business Park, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, Mr. Jayesh Desai &For Respondent: Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ts accounts, as were placed before him, was not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his aforesaid contention, the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the Hon‟ble Apex Court had observed that where the determination of the disallowance under Sec. 14A is to be made by applying the formula prescribed under Rule 8D or in the best judgment of the assessing officer, what the law postulates is the requirement of a satisfaction in the assessing officer that…

Kotak Mhindra Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Kotak Mahindra Asset V. Asst. Cit Management Company. Ltd., Range – 14(2)(1) 27 Bkc, G. Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai -400 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 51 Pan: Aaack5576C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vispi T. Patel Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

For Appellant: Shri Vispi T. PatelFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)Section 4Section 8D

…he claim of the assessee and without establishing the fact whether such expenditure has been really incurred for earning the exempt income by the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. v. DCIT [394 ITR 449 (SC)] and the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [402 ITR 640]. 5. Without prejudice to the above Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that for computing the administrative expenses to be disallowed under Rule 8D (2)(iii) of I.T. Rules, only those investments are to be considered which yielded exempt income. Reliance was place…