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

DCIT Cent. Cir. 4(2), Cent. Range - 4, Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6002/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrib. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6002/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri M. V. RajguruFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sonde
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. Ground No. 3 5. This ground raised by the revenue is general in nature, thus requires no specific adjudication. 9 I.T.A. No. 6002/Mum/2016 M/s K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. Ltd. 6. In the net result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th Jan, 2018. (B. R. Baskaran) (Sa…

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 1321/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Hiten Chander-ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 254(1)

…he amount offered by the assessee suo-motu the AO had made the disallowance,that in the absence of rebutting of assessee's claim of expenses, disallowance under Rule 8D was not sustainable.He relied upon the cases of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (394 ITR 449) (SC), Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.(165 ITD 659)Smartchem Technologies Ltd.(85 taxmann.com 43). The DR stated that the matter could be decided on merits. 6.3.We find that while making the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, the AO/DRP has not dealt with the objections raised by the assessee, that AO has not pointed out as to why the disallowa…

Mirc Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4668/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahaya, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4668/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh MahantFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru
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. 7. In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA 3320/Mum/2016 for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed. 5. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and also perused the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) as well as orders of Hon’ble ITAT as mentioned above in assessee’s own case. We find that the facts of the pres…

Shilpa Memani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5244/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms Charu Goyal, CA
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shilpa Memani, Vs. ACIT, 1-1/16, Shanti Mohan House, Circle-24(1), Ansari Road, New Delhi. Darya Ganj, New Delhi. PAN: AAJPM6234F Assessee By : Ms Charu Goyal, CA Deptt. By : None Date of Hearing : 18.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017 ORDER This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 25.05.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. No one was present on behalf of the Revenue. In fact, the Revenue has filed en bloc adjournment…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd

ITA/250/2005HC Delhi07 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 14ASection 43B

…ITA No.250/2005 Page 1 of 6 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 11th November 2017 Decided on: 7th December, 2017 + ITA No. 250/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Puneet Rai, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr. Gaurav Kheterpal, Advocate. versus MARUTI UDYOG LTD. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. S. Sukumaran, Mr. Anand Sukumar, Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Ms. Roopali Gup…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Dlf Info City Developers (Kolkata) Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 969/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Senior DR
Section 114Section 14A

…ring the year under assessment to earn the interest free income rather proceeded mechanically by extracting the bare language of Rule 8D. 7 ITA No.969/Del./2016 CO No.167/Del/2016 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacture 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 :- “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 m…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…rainti, Dist. Rohtak. 10. Reliance in support of the principle of consistency was placed on the following judgments: 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. i) 308ITR 161 (SC) CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust ii) 266ITR 99 (SC) CIT v. Berger Paints iii) 394 ITR 449 (SC) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. vs. iv) DCIT. 11. Reliance was also placed on the following: That mere allotment of contract does not bring about any liability to tax the income from contract in the hands of entity in whose name contract is allotted and not executing the contract. ITA No. 7698/M/2010 A.Y. 2007-08SMC Ambika JV v.…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…rainti, Dist. Rohtak. 10. Reliance in support of the principle of consistency was placed on the following judgments: 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. i) 308ITR 161 (SC) CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust ii) 266ITR 99 (SC) CIT v. Berger Paints iii) 394 ITR 449 (SC) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. vs. iv) DCIT. 11. Reliance was also placed on the following: That mere allotment of contract does not bring about any liability to tax the income from contract in the hands of entity in whose name contract is allotted and not executing the contract. ITA No. 7698/M/2010 A.Y. 2007-08SMC Ambika JV v.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cellphone Credit & Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4336/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Kuldip Singhin Ita Nos. 4336, 4337, 4338 & 4339/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Acit Vs. Cellphone Credit & Ecurities Central Circle-26, Room No. Pvt. Ltd. A-60, Naraina Indl. 323, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaacc4101D) Acit Vs. Shyam Basic Infrastructure Central Circle-26, Room No. Project Pvt. Ltd. 323, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, A-60, Naraina Indl. Area, Jhandewalan Extn. Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aabcs3455R) Acit Vs. Intel Invofin India Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-26, Room No. A-60, Naraina Indl. Area, 323, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Phase-1, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaaci2366J) Acit Vs. A.T. Invofin India Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-26, Room No. A-60, Naraina Indl. Area, 323, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Phase-1, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaaca8248B) Revenue By: Shri U.C. Dubey, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri U.C. Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ITA Nos. 4436, 4437, 4438 and 4439/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “E” BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, PRESIDENT & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER In ITA Nos. 4336, 4337, 4338 and 4339/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 ACIT Vs. Cellphone Credit & ecurities Central Circle-26, Room No. Pvt. Ltd. A-60, Naraina Indl. 323, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (PAN: AAACC4101D) ACIT Vs. Shyam Basic Infrastructure Central Circle-26, Room No. Project Pvt. Ltd. 323, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, A-60…

M/S. Bio Med Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Addl.CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6827/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…is no acceptable and that making, continuing, exiting from investment etc. are coordinated management decision and so expenditure is embedded in indirect expenses( from para 36) and so s.14A invoked. Hon’ble court after relying on Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 394 ITR 449(SC) held that AO failed to record proper satisfaction. In the case of Taikisha Engineering, hon’ble court has relied on hon’ble Bombay HC decision in above case of Godrej reported in 328 ITR 81 for the proposition that that satisfaction has to be recorded with respect to accounts in terms of ss. (2)/(3) of s. 14A and the provisions does not ipso…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/S Om Metals Infra Projects Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 1133/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Nov 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri B.B. Maheshwari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Vrindera Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…ugust, 2017 in para 4.3 is 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 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…

Ambit Corporate Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of 14

ITA 1096/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Ambit Corporate Finance Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Ambit House, 1St Floor, 449, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400 020 Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaaca8834B

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)

…ounsel for the assessee stated that this decision of the special bench of ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. (supra), is reversed by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) and held the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules ITA No. 1794/Mum/2014, Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 08-09, 09-10, 10-11 & 11-12 as prospective and will apply for and from AY 2008-09 and thereafter the relevant assessment years falls wherein Rule 8D of the Rules will apply. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to…

Af-Taab Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes while Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 7128/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1807/Mum/2011 & 1812/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala & HarshFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ITA No. 1807/M/2011,1812/M/2011, 4284/M/2014,7069/M/2013, 6546/M/2014,6573/M/2014, 7128/M/2014 आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1807/Mum/2011 & 1812/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ ACIT Circle 6(1),Room No. Af-taab Investment Company Limited, 506, 5 th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Centre, Bhawan v. „B‟ Block, M K Road 34 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACA4800H आयकर अपीऱ सं…

Ambit Corporate Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of 14

ITA 1794/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Ambit Corporate Finance Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Ambit House, 1St Floor, 449, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400 020 Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaaca8834B

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)

…ounsel for the assessee stated that this decision of the special bench of ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. (supra), is reversed by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) and held the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules ITA No. 1794/Mum/2014, Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 08-09, 09-10, 10-11 & 11-12 as prospective and will apply for and from AY 2008-09 and thereafter the relevant assessment years falls wherein Rule 8D of the Rules will apply. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to…

Ambit Corporate Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of 14

ITA 6250/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Ambit Corporate Finance Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Ambit House, 1St Floor, 449, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400 020 Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaaca8834B

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)

…ounsel for the assessee stated that this decision of the special bench of ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. (supra), is reversed by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) and held the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules ITA No. 1794/Mum/2014, Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 08-09, 09-10, 10-11 & 11-12 as prospective and will apply for and from AY 2008-09 and thereafter the relevant assessment years falls wherein Rule 8D of the Rules will apply. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to…

Addl.C.I.T.3(1), Mumbai vs. Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of 14

ITA 5991/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Ambit Corporate Finance Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Ambit House, 1St Floor, 449, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400 020 Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaaca8834B

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)

…ounsel for the assessee stated that this decision of the special bench of ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. (supra), is reversed by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) and held the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules ITA No. 1794/Mum/2014, Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 08-09, 09-10, 10-11 & 11-12 as prospective and will apply for and from AY 2008-09 and thereafter the relevant assessment years falls wherein Rule 8D of the Rules will apply. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to…

ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Aftab Investment Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes while Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1812/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1807/Mum/2011 & 1812/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala & HarshFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ITA No. 1807/M/2011,1812/M/2011, 4284/M/2014,7069/M/2013, 6546/M/2014,6573/M/2014, 7128/M/2014 आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1807/Mum/2011 & 1812/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ ACIT Circle 6(1),Room No. Af-taab Investment Company Limited, 506, 5 th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Centre, Bhawan v. „B‟ Block, M K Road 34 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACA4800H आयकर अपीऱ सं…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2706/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

…e it is apparent that the investment made by the assessee in exempt income generating investments is far less than interest-free funds available with the assessee. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court recently in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd versus DCIT (394 ITR 449 (SC )) has held that:- “38. In the present case, we do not find any mention of the reasons which had prevailed upon the Assessing Officer, while dealing with the Assessment Year 2002-2003, to hold that the claims of the Assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income cannot be accepted and why the orders of the Tribunal for…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Surya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2123/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

…e it is apparent that the investment made by the assessee in exempt income generating investments is far less than interest-free funds available with the assessee. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court recently in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd versus DCIT (394 ITR 449 (SC )) has held that:- “38. In the present case, we do not find any mention of the reasons which had prevailed upon the Assessing Officer, while dealing with the Assessment Year 2002-2003, to hold that the claims of the Assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income cannot be accepted and why the orders of the Tribunal for…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Surya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2122/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 68

…e it is apparent that the investment made by the assessee in exempt income generating investments is far less than interest-free funds available with the assessee. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court recently in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd versus DCIT (394 ITR 449 (SC )) has held that:- “38. In the present case, we do not find any mention of the reasons which had prevailed upon the Assessing Officer, while dealing with the Assessment Year 2002-2003, to hold that the claims of the Assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income cannot be accepted and why the orders of the Tribunal for…