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 366,470 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

ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Durr India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1638/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit, Durr India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle 1 (1), Vs. 471, Prestige Polygon, Chennai. Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. Pan: Aaacd 3568P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40

…Further, the Ld.DR submitted that the DDT is a tax on company’s profits and not on dividend income. In :- 9 -: support of her submission, the Ld.DR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., vs. DCIT, [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC). 14. The Ld.AR relied on the findings of the FAA. 15. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. DDT u/s 115-O is a tax on the company's distributed profits, treated as final payment u/s 115-O (3) & (4) of the Act. No further credit or deduction is allowable to the company or shareholder. The shareholder does not e…

H & M Housing Finance and Leasing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi and Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

…1992) 1 SCC 659 (SC). The decision of the Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has been referred in a decision of a recent origin in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2017) 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449/201717 SCC 421. 14. We may also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2018) 96 taxmann.com 157/257 Taxman 211/409 ITR 545 (Bombay). in which this Court referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 5(1)(1), Noida vs. Ebixcash Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and by assessee is allowed

ITA 4738/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year-2018-19) M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Asst. Cit, Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Phase- Circle-5(1)(1), Ii, Noida, Vs. Gautambudh Nagar, Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Noida, Uttarparadesh. Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Circle-5(1)(1), Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Gautambudh Nagar, Vs. Phase-Ii, Noida, Noida, Uttar Paradesh. Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca & Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Shrirajesh Kumar Dhanesta,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

…tment and at page 4 of PB, there is a financial statement showing with the share capital and free reserves exceeds Rs.12,00, Cr/- against investments of Rs.829.14 Crs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC) has held that where the assessee has reserves exceeding investment, no disallowance u/s 14A is permissible. 5.2 At the same time, assessee also deserves to be benefited for the reason that no valid satisfaction for disallowance was recorded by the Tax Authorities. Reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o…

Ebix Cash Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and by assessee is allowed

ITA 4453/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year-2018-19) M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Asst. Cit, Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Phase- Circle-5(1)(1), Ii, Noida, Vs. Gautambudh Nagar, Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Noida, Uttarparadesh. Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Circle-5(1)(1), Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Gautambudh Nagar, Vs. Phase-Ii, Noida, Noida, Uttar Paradesh. Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca & Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Shrirajesh Kumar Dhanesta,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

…tment and at page 4 of PB, there is a financial statement showing with the share capital and free reserves exceeds Rs.12,00, Cr/- against investments of Rs.829.14 Crs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT 394 ITR 449 (SC) has held that where the assessee has reserves exceeding investment, no disallowance u/s 14A is permissible. 5.2 At the same time, assessee also deserves to be benefited for the reason that no valid satisfaction for disallowance was recorded by the Tax Authorities. Reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o…

Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

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

ITA 23/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 23/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Esvin House, No.13, Vs. Of Income Tax, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Circle-1, Ltu, Perungudi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan: Aaccp 2779A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.R. Suresh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 23/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited, The Deputy Commissioner ESVIN House, No.13, Vs. of Income Tax, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Circle-1, LTU, Perungudi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. PAN: AACCP 2779A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N.R. Suresh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respo…

Manipal Global Education Services Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…O is required to prove and show that assessee has incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC) and 'Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49/250 Taxman 532/398 ITR 51 (Delhi). ITA Nos.719 to 721 & 976/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 26 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts show that assessee is a company engaged in the business of management consultancy se…

Manipal Hospitals Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Columbia Asia Hospitals Pvt. Ltd), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…O is required to prove and show that assessee has incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC) and 'Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49/250 Taxman 532/398 ITR 51 (Delhi). ITA Nos.719 to 721 & 976/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 26 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts show that assessee is a company engaged in the business of management consultancy se…

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 721/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…O is required to prove and show that assessee has incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC) and 'Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49/250 Taxman 532/398 ITR 51 (Delhi). ITA Nos.719 to 721 & 976/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 26 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts show that assessee is a company engaged in the business of management consultancy se…

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…O is required to prove and show that assessee has incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC) and 'Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49/250 Taxman 532/398 ITR 51 (Delhi). ITA Nos.719 to 721 & 976/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 26 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts show that assessee is a company engaged in the business of management consultancy se…

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…O is required to prove and show that assessee has incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC) and 'Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 49/250 Taxman 532/398 ITR 51 (Delhi). ITA Nos.719 to 721 & 976/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 26 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The facts show that assessee is a company engaged in the business of management consultancy se…

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Rana Polycot Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1050/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 3.1 On the other hand, ld. CIT DR filed written submissions and also placed on record copies of re-assessment order in the ca…

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Rana Polycot Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1015/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 3.1 On the other hand, ld. CIT DR filed written submissions and also placed on record copies of re-assessment order in the ca…

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Rana Polycot Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1014/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 3.1 On the other hand, ld. CIT DR filed written submissions and also placed on record copies of re-assessment order in the ca…

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Rana Polycot Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1013/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 3.1 On the other hand, ld. CIT DR filed written submissions and also placed on record copies of re-assessment order in the ca…

Vtl Investments Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Circle 1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1109/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gupta, Advocate and Shri Rishav Dhingra, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1109 /Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 VTL Investments Limited बनाम The DCIT Vardhman Premises, Chandigarh Circle I, Ludhiana Road, Ludhiana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCV7449L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Gupta, Advocate and Shri Rishav Dhingra, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/07/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date…

Shree Cement Limited, Bangur Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1517/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Shree Cement Limited Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Admin Block Masuda Road, Income Tax, Beawar [Raj.] , H. O. Beawar, Central Circle, Ajmer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 8796 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh…

Jaypee Infra Ventures Private Limited, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. DCIT Circle 13(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3946/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14A

…ee’s working of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 5. The Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment vs. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 and Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) 3 Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. to submit that the application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is not mandatory. Further, it was submitted that the entire investments made by the appellant assessee were very old investment in group concerns and there was no transaction of purchase and sale during the relevant year. The dividend income…

Fena Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 2475/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(3)

…opinion, the Learned AO had completely missed out in the instant case. Further the recording of objective satisfaction with cogent reasons had been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited reported in 394 ITR 449(SC). This was also endorsed in the subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC). Hence, we have no hesitation to delete the disallowance of expenses made under section 14A of the Act by the Learned AO in the instant case for both the years. 6. The Ground No.2 raised by the assessee w…

Fena Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Additional, Joint, Deputy, ACIT, ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2474/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(3)

…opinion, the Learned AO had completely missed out in the instant case. Further the recording of objective satisfaction with cogent reasons had been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited reported in 394 ITR 449(SC). This was also endorsed in the subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC). Hence, we have no hesitation to delete the disallowance of expenses made under section 14A of the Act by the Learned AO in the instant case for both the years. 6. The Ground No.2 raised by the assessee w…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Chadha Papers Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5213/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. M/S. Chadha Papers Ltd, Central Circle-29, Chadha Estate, Nainital New Delhi Road, Rampur, Bilaspur, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcc3799C M/S. Chadha Papers Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Chadha Estate, Nainital Central Circle-29, Road, Rampur, Bilaspur, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcc3799C Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Shri Anil Chachra, Adv Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…as in Rule 8D(1) of the Rules. Non recording of such satisfaction would become fatal to the disallowance per se. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) wherein it was held 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 which doe…