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 Minda Investment Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are, accordingly, allowed

ITA 510/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shrik.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…investments during the year and they do not require the utilisation of the interest-bearing funds for investment. It is the settled principle of law vide the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce manufacturing company limited (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) that, in the absence of any proof by way of material that any part of the borrowings of the assessee had been diverted to earn tax free income, despite the availability of surplus or interest free funds available, the disallowance is not permissible. The legal requirement is that the basis has to be disclosed establishing a reasonable nexus…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 6 vs. Mis Modi Rubber Ltd

ITA/260/2019HC Delhi02 Sept 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 14Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Supreme Court had an occasion to examine Section 14 A of the Act in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr, [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC). The relevant paras read under as:- “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 merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…out the working of suo moto disallowance. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the assessing officer, whereas the Ld.AR submitted that where there is no be made. For this proposition, he relied upon the following judgements:- 1. Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd 394 ITR 449 (SC) 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd 402 ITR 640 (SC) 3. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd 400 ITR 217 (SC) 4. Anshul Speciality Molecules Ltd ITA No.4436/M/16 5. G.K.K. Capital Market (P) Ltd ITA No.805/Kol/2012 6. Taurian Engineering P Ltd ITA No.7239/Mum/2016 7. Ashok M Wadhwa ITA No.1871 & 2576/Mum/2012 8. Wadhwa Residency (P) Ltd 95 Taxmannn.co…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Igate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ay High Court in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 515 (Bom). It is further observed that this issue is now no more res integra in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), upholding the view of the lower authorities that when interest free funds in the form of share capital and reserves etc. are more than the amount of investment, then no disallowance of interest can be made u/s 14A. Respectfully following the precedents, we order to delete the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) to the tune of Rs.5,49,818/-…

Rajnish Garg, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-6, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1581/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrisanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1581/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Rajnish Garg, Vs. The Acit, Circle-6, 524-B, Chandigarh बनाम Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Adfpg2620N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. K.J. Shelly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “बी ” च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी एन. के. सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRISANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1581/CHD/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Rajnish Garg, Vs. The ACIT, Circle-6, 524-B, Chandigarh बनाम Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: ADFPG2620N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Sh. K.J. Shelly, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Sh. Manjit Singh, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 22.08.…

Nanda Exim Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Ward -4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.408/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Nanda Exim Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.33, Bharathidasan Street, V. Income Tax, Nethaji Avenue Extension, Corporate Ward – 4(2), Nerkundram, Chennai - 600 107. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaccn 9282 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 14A

…ry, Shri S. Bharath, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that in view of the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1, and also the judgment of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449, even if there was no dividend income, the expenditure has to be disallowed under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant mate…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5529/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80

…for earning exempt income before making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act even in case where the assessee claims that no expenses has been incurred. He placed reliance on various decisions including the decision of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs DCIT, 394 ITR 449(SC); H.T. Media Ltd. vs PCIT, 399 ITR 576 (Del); and Eicher Motors Ltd. vs CIT, 398 ITR 51 (Del) for such proposition. 6. According to the learned DR, the reasons recorded by the learned AO are sufficient to comply with the requirement of Section 14A and in 4 view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of India Bulls Financial Services L…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ITA No.- 1531/Del/2017. M/s Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 1531/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Assistant Commissioner of M/s Resurgere Mines and Income Tax, Vs. Minerals India Ltd., Circle- 21(2), 15, Morvi House, 28/30, New Delhi. Goa Street Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400038 PAN No: AAACE0111B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CA ORDER PER ANADEE NA…

Arun Ravindranath Sawhney, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7192/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7192/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Arun Ravindranath Sawhney The Dy. Commissioner Of 502, Daisylea Apartment, 17- Income Tax, Central Circle A Mount Pleasant Road, 3(4), Old Acit Central Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Circle 24& 26 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aafps4688F

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Anadi Varma
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rises Ltd. -167 CTR 0321 (2000) 14. CIT Vs. Racommercial Enterprises Ltd -1 167 CTR 031 (2000) 15. CIT vs. Munish Iron Store (2004) 186 CTR 0321 (2000) 16. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India -183 Taxmann 100 (Delhi) 17. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT -81 Taxmann 111(SC) 18. Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT – 91 Taxmann 162 (Guj) 19. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel Vs. ACIT 80 TAxmann 162 (Guj) 20. CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. – 64 Taxmann 442 (SC) The learned CIT- DR, has relied on the following case laws: - 1. Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi Vs. ACIT ITA No. 2976/Mum/2016 2. Airen Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2018) 191…

Capricon Realty Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2954/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी सी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। सी सी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2954/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Capricon Realty Ltd. DCIT-Cir. 2(1)(1) 6th Floor, Shri Vithaldas Chambers बनाम 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan नाम नाम/ नाम 16, Mumbai Samachar Marg M.K.Road Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACC-4297-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri T…

Tata Technologies Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

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

ITA 1708/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hat the Assessing Officer has failed to record any satisfaction before invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and H.T. Media Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT in ITA Nos.548 & 549/2015, judgment dated 23.08.2017. He referred to paras 39 and 52 of the said decision. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on without prejudice basis also pointed out that since own funds were more than investments made, then there was no merit in making any disallowance u…

Tata Technologies Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

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

ITA 168/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hat the Assessing Officer has failed to record any satisfaction before invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and H.T. Media Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT in ITA Nos.548 & 549/2015, judgment dated 23.08.2017. He referred to paras 39 and 52 of the said decision. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on without prejudice basis also pointed out that since own funds were more than investments made, then there was no merit in making any disallowance u…

M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2206/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23(1)

…on with the claim made before proceeding to disallow the expenses under Rule 8D of I.T. Rules and in support of his contention he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Vs. DCIT reported in (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). In the present case, he submitted that satisfaction with respect to suo moto disallowance of expenditure was not recorded by the AO and therefore the application of Rule 8D of I.T. Rules was not appropriate. He therefore submitted that the disallowance made by AO be deleted. Ld.D.R. on the other hand submitted that AO has clearly recorded…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…entire assessment order as to the incorrectness of the suo moto disallowance made by the Assessee in its books of accounts and stated that this issue is covered in favour of the Assessee in various judgments such as Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co vs. CIT [394 ITR 449] and HT Media vs. CIT [399 ITR 576] and a recent decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd. [ITA No. 268 of 2018]. , the Hon’ble Court has held as under: “In the present case, however, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) without recording required satisfaction on “having regard to the accounts of the Asse…

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4754/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…156 ITD 72; (iii) NYK Line India Ltd. vs. ACIT – 175 TTJ 180; (iv) Super Auto Forge (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 156 ITD 467; (v) Vipin Malik vs. ACIT 45 ITR 589; (vi) Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs. CIT – 2017-TIOL-353-HC- P&H-IT; (vii) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd. – 394 ITR 449 19 ITA No.4183/Del./2015 ITA No.4754/Del./2015 (SC); and Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC). 25 Perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee, available at pages 4 to 38 of the paper book, goes to prove that the assessee is having sufficient own funds to the tune of Rs.41776 crores. It is also not in dispute that the a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…156 ITD 72; (iii) NYK Line India Ltd. vs. ACIT – 175 TTJ 180; (iv) Super Auto Forge (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 156 ITD 467; (v) Vipin Malik vs. ACIT 45 ITR 589; (vi) Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs. CIT – 2017-TIOL-353-HC- P&H-IT; (vii) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd. – 394 ITR 449 19 ITA No.4183/Del./2015 ITA No.4754/Del./2015 (SC); and Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC). 25 Perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee, available at pages 4 to 38 of the paper book, goes to prove that the assessee is having sufficient own funds to the tune of Rs.41776 crores. It is also not in dispute that the a…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…not be disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: 99 • Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) • Pr. CIT vs. GMM Pfaulder Ltd.: ITA No. 506 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017 (Guj) • CIT v. Max India Ltd.: 388 ITR 81 (P&H) • CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd.:[2013] 215 Taxman 272 (Gujarat) • CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340, • CIT vs. M/s. Ashok Commercial Enterprises: ITA No. No.2985 of 2009 (Bom) • Lubi Submeribles Ltd.: ITA No…

Tata Projects Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 329/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.329/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 बिाम/ Tata Projects Limited, Dcit Circle-2(3)(1) 2Nd,3Rd & 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Transocean House, M K Road V. Lake Boulevard Road, Mumbai-400020 Hiranandani Gardens Mhada Colony Powai, Mumbai-400076 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaact4119L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. R.R. Vora & Shri. Vipual Soni Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 329/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 27.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-6/It-52/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.329/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri. R.R. Vora &For Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(3)

…nt satisfaction was recorded by the AO while invoking Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules as is mandated u/s 14A(2) of the 1961 Act. Reference was made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449(SC). It was submitted that assessee’s appeal for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 were decided by the tribunal in assesse’s own case in ITA no. 544 & 1677 /Mum/2012 for AY 2008-09, ITA no. 1718/Mum/2013 & CO No. 09/Mum/2013 arising out of ITA No. 1718/Mum/2013 for AY 2009-10 and ITA no. 5881 & 6641/Mum/2013 & CO. No. 10/Mum/2013 for AY 2010-11, vide common…

M.J. Global Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6298/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR
Section 41Section 41(1)

…297 & 6298/Del./2012 assessee during the year under assessment, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A of the Act.” 21. Hon’ble Deli High Court in Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT – 394 ITR 449 (SC) has held that, “when the assessee has not earned dividend income forming part of the total income during the year under assessment, section 14A read with Rule 8D is not attracted.” So, following the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts, we are of the considered view that when undisputedly assessee has not earned…

M.J. International Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6296/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR
Section 41Section 41(1)

…297 & 6298/Del./2012 assessee during the year under assessment, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A of the Act.” 21. Hon’ble Deli High Court in Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT – 394 ITR 449 (SC) has held that, “when the assessee has not earned dividend income forming part of the total income during the year under assessment, section 14A read with Rule 8D is not attracted.” So, following the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts, we are of the considered view that when undisputedly assessee has not earned…