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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.J. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

ITA 6192/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…

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

ITA 6191/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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Vivita Relan, New Delhi

In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6481/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- Vs Vivitarelan, Tax, Circle -54(1), New Delhi. C-121, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Pan: Ajcpr2578R & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- Vivitarelan, C-121, Defence Colony, Tax, Circle -54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Ajcpr2578R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…Act, learned AO jumped to the conclusion that such a disallowance has to be computed in accordance with the provisions under Rule 8D(2). Learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 394 ITR 449 (SC) and submitted that in assessee’s own case for the AY 2010-11, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.2248/Del/2015 held that when learned AO failed to record the satisfaction as to the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble A…

Ms Vivita Relan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5626/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- Vs Vivitarelan, Tax, Circle -54(1), New Delhi. C-121, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Pan: Ajcpr2578R & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- Vivitarelan, C-121, Defence Colony, Tax, Circle -54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Ajcpr2578R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…Act, learned AO jumped to the conclusion that such a disallowance has to be computed in accordance with the provisions under Rule 8D(2). Learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 394 ITR 449 (SC) and submitted that in assessee’s own case for the AY 2010-11, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.2248/Del/2015 held that when learned AO failed to record the satisfaction as to the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble A…

Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (Formerly Igate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

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

ITA 74/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C

…ce under section 14A of the Act, then there is no merit in the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 10 (SC). The relevant findings of Tribunal are in paras 34 and 35 at pages 18 to 20 of the order of Tribunal, which read as under:- “34. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order in para 10 had observed that the assessee had earned significant amount of tax free dividends…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Igate Computer System Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 299/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C

…ce under section 14A of the Act, then there is no merit in the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 10 (SC). The relevant findings of Tribunal are in paras 34 and 35 at pages 18 to 20 of the order of Tribunal, which read as under:- “34. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order in para 10 had observed that the assessee had earned significant amount of tax free dividends…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…ced reliance on judgments such as Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Delhi) which is highly misplaced since, overruled by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court. It is also pertinent to note that in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that rule 8D can only be applied prospectively. He further stated that the recording of the satisfaction on examination of the books of the assessee is a mandatory exercise, which should have been carried out by the assessing officer but has not been carried out and therefore on this score itself the disallowan…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…ced reliance on judgments such as Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Delhi) which is highly misplaced since, overruled by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court. It is also pertinent to note that in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that rule 8D can only be applied prospectively. He further stated that the recording of the satisfaction on examination of the books of the assessee is a mandatory exercise, which should have been carried out by the assessing officer but has not been carried out and therefore on this score itself the disallowan…

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…ced reliance on judgments such as Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Delhi) which is highly misplaced since, overruled by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court. It is also pertinent to note that in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that rule 8D can only be applied prospectively. He further stated that the recording of the satisfaction on examination of the books of the assessee is a mandatory exercise, which should have been carried out by the assessing officer but has not been carried out and therefore on this score itself the disallowan…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1318/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No. 1302/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit, Circle-9(1), New Delhi....………………...…….........………………………............….Revenue/Department

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 45I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1302/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) ACIT, Circle-9(1), New Delhi....………………...…….........………………………............….Revenue/Department SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd.…………………..................................…....….…………........…...Assessee [PAN : AAACS 1425 L] & I.T.A. No. 1318/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd....………………...………………………..............…..……...........…. Assessee [PAN : AAACS 1425 L] ACIT, Range-9, New Delhi.……………………

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No. 1302/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit, Circle-9(1), New Delhi....………………...…….........………………………............….Revenue/Department

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 45I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1302/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) ACIT, Circle-9(1), New Delhi....………………...…….........………………………............….Revenue/Department SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd.…………………..................................…....….…………........…...Assessee [PAN : AAACS 1425 L] & I.T.A. No. 1318/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd....………………...………………………..............…..……...........…. Assessee [PAN : AAACS 1425 L] ACIT, Range-9, New Delhi.……………………

DCIT, Bk Circle, Palanpur vs. Sh. Kamlesh B. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2050/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2050/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2050/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 DCIT, BK Circle Vs. Shri Kamlesh B. Shah Palanpur. 430, Prop. KB Exports Panchratna Opera House Mumbai 400 004. PAN : AFXPS 4908 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR Assessee by : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 19/02/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADA…

Vedanta Ltd (Successor to Cairn India Ltd), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi

ITA 6937/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Mishra, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 928(1)

…bay High Court in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 515 (Bom). It is further observed that this issue is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), in which it has been held that when interest free funds in the form of share capital and reserves are more than investment, then no disallowance of interest can be made u/s 14A. 10. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, we find that the Assessing Officer has taken value of investments yielding exempt income at Rs.1,179.96 crore. As a…

The ACIT-2(1), Ujjain vs. M/S. Turquise Investment & Finance Pvt.Ltd., Nagda

In the result, against total disallowance of Rs

ITA 332/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…puting disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D: 1. Maxop Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC) 2. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. ltd. vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81) (Bom) 3. Affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 4. H.T. Media Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 85 Taxmann.com 113 (Del. HC) 5. CIT vs. I.P. Support Services Indid(P.) Ltd. (378 ITR 240) Del. HC) 6. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 164 ITD 42 (Mum. Trib) 7. Anshul Special melecules Limited vs. DCIT (ITANo.4436/Mum/2016) Mum. Trib Torquise Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITANos.332 & 33…

M/S Roopchand Kodandas (Aluwala), Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 826/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K. L. Moolchandani(Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT)
Section 44A

…he Revenue where it proceeded to depart from the past settled position wherein the assessee has been held as ‘Kachha Arahtia’. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (394 ITR 449) wherein it was held as under: “38. ……..While it is true that the principle of res judicata would not apply to assessment proceedings under the Act, the need for consistency and certainty and existence of strong and compelling reasons for a departure from a settled position has to be spelt out which conspicuously is absent in the present case. In…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Span India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Span India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-20, New Delhi 227, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan :Aaacs0079A (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.245/Del/2015 [Arising Out Of Ita No.245/Del/2015] Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Span India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 227, Okhla Industrial Estate, Central Circle-20, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan :Aaacs0079A (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Shri Deepak Malik, Adv.

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…cause he did not expressly record his dissatisfaction about assessee's calculation, his conclusion could not be rejected. C.O. No. 245/Del/2015 2 Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC)/[2017] 247 Taxman 361(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 exempt income, merely because he did not expressly record his dissatisfaction about assessee's calculation, his concl…

M/S Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh BeganiFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra
Section 143(3)

…e following judicial pronouncements: a) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 32 (SC) ( Page No.169 to 174 PB) b) CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) ( Pg No. 161 to 168 PB) c) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) ( pg No. 175 to 177 PB) In view of the above, the addition of Rs.82,30,00,000/-made by the Ld. AO and that sustained by the Ld.CIT(A), being Financial Assistance received from MDF towards Development of Tara Coal Block, treating the same as Revenue Receipt is highly unjustified, unwarranted, based on incorrect assumption of facts and not in…

DCIT, Circle- 2, Meerut vs. Romi Shiv, Meerut

ITA 3900/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCHES (CAMP AT MEERUT) BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3900/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) DCIT, Circle 2, vs. Shri Romi Shiv, Meerut. 47/3, Begum, Bagh, Meerut. (PAN : ACYPS9841F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR Shri Munshi Ram Bihagra, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date of Order : 16.01.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, DCIT, Circle 2, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reven…

M/S. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5481/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Dr. B.R.R. Kumaray: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Khanna, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, D.R
Section 14Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

…been clarified hereinabove.” 6.2. On the contrary Ld.Sr.DR placed reliance upon the orders passed by authorities below and following decisions: 6 A.Y.:2011-12 Punjab National Bank, New Del.  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 been pas…

M/S.Combined Foods P. Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 155/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Combined Foods Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax, Kochi-1. 28/3030, Elamkulam, Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020. [Pan:Aaacc 9366N] Assessee-Appellant Revenue-Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)

…nds. Thus the investments were out of own funds in the form of capital and reserves. When the investment is made out of own funds, disallowance u/s 14A is not attracted. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd (394 ITR 449) (SC) 2. Principal CIT vs Sintex Industries Ltd 82 taxman.com 171 Guj - Department SLP against this decision was dismissed by Supreme Court in 93 taxman.com 24. 10.1 Hence, according to the Ld. AR, there was no error in the assessment order warranting revision under section 263 of the Act. It was submitted that on the above both issues the asse…