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 367,154 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

SC Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 3340/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Shefali Swaroop, CIT, DR
Section 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 45(3)

…ation is 2007-08. The provisions of Rule 8D, for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, cannot be applied in any year prior to A.Y. 2008-09 as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) followed his own order for the assessment year 2006-07 and restricted the disallowance to 1% of the dividend income. Such order was assailed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 19.08.2005, a copy placed on page 227 of the paper book, the Tribunal upheld the action of the ld. CIT(A) in r…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rare Enterprises, Mumbai

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

ITA 5208/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. S. PadmajaFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari
Section 14Section 14ASection 2

…ations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court and other High Courts, on which the assessee had placed reliance: (a) Extract from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited 394 ITR 449 (SC) "Nevertheless, irrespective of the aforesaid question, what cannot be denied is that the requirement for attracting the provisions of Section 14A(1) of the Act is proof of the fact that the expenditure sought to be disallowed/deducted had actually been incurred in earning the dividend income." x x x x "Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rare Enterprises, Mumbai

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

ITA 5207/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. S. PadmajaFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Tiwari
Section 14Section 14ASection 2

…ations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court and other High Courts, on which the assessee had placed reliance: (a) Extract from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited 394 ITR 449 (SC) "Nevertheless, irrespective of the aforesaid question, what cannot be denied is that the requirement for attracting the provisions of Section 14A(1) of the Act is proof of the fact that the expenditure sought to be disallowed/deducted had actually been incurred in earning the dividend income." x x x x "Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A…

Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5842/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kotak Mahindra The Addl. Commissioner Of Investments Ltd. 27 Bkc, C- Vs. Income Tax Range 3(2) 27 G Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- Complex Bandra(E), 400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaach1075K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farrokh Irani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Farrokh Irani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…there is a nexus between non- interest bearing funds and tax-free investments. It is stated that the taxable interest income is far in excess of interest expenditure. Relying on the decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), it is submitted that the action of both the AO and CIT(A) is contrary to the principles laid down therein that (i) there must be proof led by the department that the expenditure sought to be disallowed has actually been incurred in earning the dividend income, (ii) there must be a basis disclosed to establish a reasonable nexus between the…

M/S. Pbs Foods Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. JCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Jcit, Range-Ii Pbs Foods Pvt. Ltd., 126-127, First Floor, Vardhman Star Gurgaon Shop Mall, Sector-19, Faridabad

For Appellant: Sh. Daksh S. Bhardwaj, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Verma, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)

…order of his predecessor about moisture loss.lt is true that the principles of res-judicata does not apply to the income tax proceedings, but rule of consistency cannot be ignored. In the matter of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., the Hon’ble Apex Court(394 ITR 449) has observed as under: “ While it is true that the principle of res judicata would not apply to assessment proceedings under the Act, there is need for consistency and certainty and existence of strong and compelling reasons for a departure from a settled position has to be spelt out. We find that the assessee had furnished the copies of the rep…

K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd., Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5463/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Chadha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Dass, Senior DR
Section 114Section 14A

…rred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. He is required to do so on the basis of a reasonable and acceptable method of apportionment.” 9. 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 :- 6 ITA No.5463/Del./2015 “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 wit…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -5 vs. Keshav Power Ltd

ITA/277/2018HC Delhi07 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…es. Thus, Rule 8D cannot be applied unless this satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer. This is clear and lucid from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2017) 394 ITR 449 in which it has been observed as under :- “37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. CIT-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. AayakarBhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. J.D.J. Mis…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. CIT-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. AayakarBhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. J.D.J. Mis…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. H T Media Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3532/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) H. T. Media Ltd. Vs Dcit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12101) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Vs Acit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…st is covered in favour of the Company by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 and also by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (S.C). The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench dated 2/5/2018 in the case of DCIT (LTU) Vs. Caparo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that in regard to administrative expenses, it is cross ground to the ground of the assessee and the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions the Hon’ble…

H T Media Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2854/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) H. T. Media Ltd. Vs Dcit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12101) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Vs Acit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…st is covered in favour of the Company by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 and also by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (S.C). The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench dated 2/5/2018 in the case of DCIT (LTU) Vs. Caparo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that in regard to administrative expenses, it is cross ground to the ground of the assessee and the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions the Hon’ble…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. H T Media Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2768/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) H. T. Media Ltd. Vs Dcit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12101) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Vs Acit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…st is covered in favour of the Company by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 and also by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (S.C). The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench dated 2/5/2018 in the case of DCIT (LTU) Vs. Caparo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that in regard to administrative expenses, it is cross ground to the ground of the assessee and the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions the Hon’ble…

M/S. Ht Media Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2100/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) H. T. Media Ltd. Vs Dcit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12101) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Vs Acit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…st is covered in favour of the Company by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 and also by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (S.C). The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench dated 2/5/2018 in the case of DCIT (LTU) Vs. Caparo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that in regard to administrative expenses, it is cross ground to the ground of the assessee and the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions the Hon’ble…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. H.T. Media Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6394/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12(1) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) H. T. Media Ltd. Vs Dcit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant) Dcit Vs H. T. Media Ltd. Circle-12101) Hindustan Times House, New Delhi 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi (Appellant) Marg New Delhi Aabch3165P (Respondent) Vs Acit Hindustan Times House, Circle-12101) 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Aabch3165P (Appellant)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…st is covered in favour of the Company by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 and also by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (S.C). The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench dated 2/5/2018 in the case of DCIT (LTU) Vs. Caparo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that in regard to administrative expenses, it is cross ground to the ground of the assessee and the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions the Hon’ble…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vivita Relan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is

ITA 4106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 14A

…investments. It was submitted that in absence of ‘satisfaction’, no disallowance could be made u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 394 ITR 449 (SC) and submitted that in case no satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer, no disallowance could be made u/s 14A. The Ld. AR also submitted that a 7 Assessment year 2010-11 similar disallowance of Rs.5,73,072/- had been made by the Assessing Officer in the preceding assessment year i.e. 2009-10 which was deleted by the Ld.CIT (A) v…

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

In the result, the appeal of the department is

ITA 2248/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 14A

…investments. It was submitted that in absence of ‘satisfaction’, no disallowance could be made u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 394 ITR 449 (SC) and submitted that in case no satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer, no disallowance could be made u/s 14A. The Ld. AR also submitted that a 7 Assessment year 2010-11 similar disallowance of Rs.5,73,072/- had been made by the Assessing Officer in the preceding assessment year i.e. 2009-10 which was deleted by the Ld.CIT (A) v…

Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1253/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM) I.T.A. No. 1253/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. DCIT 14(1)(2) Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 079. Room No. 475 M.K. Road PAN : AAACG1395D Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Sonalee Godbole Department by Shri Nishant Somaiya Date of Hearing 21.8.2018 Date of Pronouncement 21.8.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 9.12.2016 passed by the learned CIT(A)-…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Om Metal Infraproject Limited, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 759/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon’Ble Apex Court In Cit V/S M/S Sbbj In Slp (C) No. 16249/2014? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 44,02,000/- U/S 14A R.W.R 8D Of The I.T. Act When The Assessee Has

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115JSection 14A

…and 4.4 as under: “4.3. The issue No.3 is regarding 14A. Now the issue is governed by the decision of Supreme Court the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing ITA 759/JP/2018_ 7 Company Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. reported in 394 ITR 449 wherein it has been held as under:- “36. Section 14A as originally enacted by the Finance Act of 2001 with effect from 1.4.1962 is in the same form and language as currently appearing in Sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the Act. Sections 14A (2) and (3) of the Act were introduced by the Finance Act of 2006 with effect from 1.4.2007. The finding…

Dilip Hari Amdekar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1709/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1709/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.H. AmdekarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…f assessee, no such satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer before invoking the provisions of Rule 8D. To support his submissions, ld. Authorized Representative placed reliance on the following decisions : 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. 394 ITR 449 (SC) 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 247 CTR 162 (Delhi) 3. CIT Vs. Hero Cycle Ltd. 323 ITR 518 (P&H) 4. On the other hand, Dr. Vivek Aggarwal representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have pe…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mirc Electronics Private Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3845/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3845 & 3846/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बिाम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) Mirc Electronics Room No. 216-A, 2Nd Floor Limited, G-1, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road Onida House, V. Mumbai-400020 Mahakali Caves Road, Midc, Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacm8055A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Satish Chandra Rajore Assessee By : Shri Dharmendra Singh सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Two Appeals, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3845 & 3846/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively , Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 27.03.2018 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively , The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Dated 28.03.2016 & 29.12.2016 Respectively Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…orities below as to the incorrectness of the claim of the assessee’s claim and also this disallowance u/s 14A so upheld by us is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449(SC). We order accordingly.” We have observed that tribunal in the aforesaid order for AY 2011-12 upheld further additional disallowance to Rs.1,00,000/- u/s 14A of the 1961 Act in addition to an amount of Rs. 34,692/- suo motu disallowed by the assessee , mainly on account of non recording of proper satisfaction by the authorities below as is man…