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 Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Biostach India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…subject to dividend distribution tax, and hence, no disallowance ought to be made is not tenable as the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court against the assessee in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v/s DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). 11.4 With regard to the assessee’s contention that where no exempt income had been earned from the investments, no disallowance ought to have been made u/s 14A of the Act by the Ld. AO, we note that the issue is decided in favour of the assessee in numerous decisions of the coordinate benches. In case no exempt income has been earned during…

Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 349/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…subject to dividend distribution tax, and hence, no disallowance ought to be made is not tenable as the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court against the assessee in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v/s DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). 11.4 With regard to the assessee’s contention that where no exempt income had been earned from the investments, no disallowance ought to have been made u/s 14A of the Act by the Ld. AO, we note that the issue is decided in favour of the assessee in numerous decisions of the coordinate benches. In case no exempt income has been earned during…

DCIT Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5244/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barote, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)Section 80G

…oked the provision of Rule 14A r.w.r 8D without recording his dissatisfaction as to the correctness of the claim made by the assessee in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej Boyce and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and vs DCIT (394 ITR 449 SC). Further, the ld. AO has failed to consider that only the average value of those investment which has yielded exempt income should have been considered in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB Ltd. TS 176 HC 2015 DEL. 20. From the above facts and on perusal of the rival contentions, it is observed that the l…

Sunjewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4720/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barote, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)Section 80G

…oked the provision of Rule 14A r.w.r 8D without recording his dissatisfaction as to the correctness of the claim made by the assessee in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej Boyce and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and vs DCIT (394 ITR 449 SC). Further, the ld. AO has failed to consider that only the average value of those investment which has yielded exempt income should have been considered in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB Ltd. TS 176 HC 2015 DEL. 20. From the above facts and on perusal of the rival contentions, it is observed that the l…

Infobeans Technologies Limited, Indore, M.P vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Indore - 1, Indore, M.P

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

ITA 371/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: S/Sh.SN Agrawal & Ritesh Jain, ARs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 263

…a Bansal vs CIT [2014]48taxmann.com53( Jaipur ) (iv) ITAT / Mumbai : A K Shivpuri v CIT – 22 Mumbai [ITA 631/Mum/2014] 22. Thereafter, the Ld AR referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of “ Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co Ltd vs DCIT ( 2017) 394 ITR 449(SC) , to submit that in the instant case before us , the recording of satisfaction by the AO as per requirement of section 14A(2) is missing or absent , and as such the action of the Ld PCIT in directing the AO to make disallowance u/s 14A was legally unsustainable in absence of any such recording by the AO which is a precondition imposed by sec…

O E N India Limited, Kochi vs. DCIT, Corporate Cir 2(1), Kochi

In the result, ground No.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 861/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…ecording satisfaction as to how the contention of the appellant that no expenditures were incurred, is incorrect. In support of this he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449(SC) and also in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 620 (SC). 8. As regards the disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act, it is submitted that the appellant made a contribution of Rs.95,188 to OEN employees welfare fund. The said contribution was made in pursuance of terms of memorandum of settlement entered into by the appellan…

O E N India Limited, Kochi vs. ITO Corporate Ward-2(2), Kochi

In the result, ground No.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 860/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…ecording satisfaction as to how the contention of the appellant that no expenditures were incurred, is incorrect. In support of this he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449(SC) and also in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 620 (SC). 8. As regards the disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act, it is submitted that the appellant made a contribution of Rs.95,188 to OEN employees welfare fund. The said contribution was made in pursuance of terms of memorandum of settlement entered into by the appellan…

O E N India Limited, Kochi vs. ACIT Corporate Circle-2(1), Kochi

In the result, ground No.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 859/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…ecording satisfaction as to how the contention of the appellant that no expenditures were incurred, is incorrect. In support of this he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449(SC) and also in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 620 (SC). 8. As regards the disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act, it is submitted that the appellant made a contribution of Rs.95,188 to OEN employees welfare fund. The said contribution was made in pursuance of terms of memorandum of settlement entered into by the appellan…

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 342/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Kumar,CA &For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

…TR 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) ITA No.341 & 342/CHD/2019 A.Y.2007-08 & 2012-13 4 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 Palongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 5. In view of the above, no disallowance is sustainable. We allow both the appeals and delete the disallowance. 6. In the…

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, R-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 341/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Kumar,CA &For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

…TR 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) ITA No.341 & 342/CHD/2019 A.Y.2007-08 & 2012-13 4 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 Palongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 5. In view of the above, no disallowance is sustainable. We allow both the appeals and delete the disallowance. 6. In the…

Heggur Nanjundappa Vishwanath, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 148Section 148A(1)(d)Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

…age in the statute is clear, it has to be so interpreted and there is no scope for interpreting the provision on any other basis. The taxing statue should be strictly construed. [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449 (SC). 27. The interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue would render the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act redundant and otiose. The time limit to issue notice under section 148 of the Act had already expired on 1st April 2021 for Assessment Year 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015, when Section 149 of the Act was amended. Therefore, reopening for As…

National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1092/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate
Section 14A

…re of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/ making the investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer. 25. 1. Further, on the same issue, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 449, observed as under: “37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken than 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 does not form part…

National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1091/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate and Shri Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR and Ms Monika H. Pande, Sr.AR
Section 1Section 14A

…ature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/ making the investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer 25.1. Further, on the same issue, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 449, 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 which does not form part o…

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle 7(1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1089/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate
Section 14A

…ure of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/ making the investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer 25. 1. Further, on the same issue, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 449, 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 which does not form part…

Bombay Oxygen Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4406/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. AR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/ making the investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer 7.6. Further, on the same issue, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 449, 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 which does not form part o…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(4), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan vs. Idbi Bank Ltd, Parth Plazamorbi

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5959/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/MUM/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 and 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, TOAP 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AABCI8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 5959/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 IDBI Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistan…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Ltd, Panchanantala Road

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the

ITA 5958/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -3(4), Mumbai Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Apulki Cornermenon, Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024)

For Respondent: Shri C. Naresh, AR
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/MUM/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 and 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -3(4), Mumbai Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd., Apulki Cornermenon, Piston Compound, TOAP 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AABCI8842G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 5959/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 IDBI Bank Ltd., Apulki Cornerm…

ACIT 3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5900/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/MUM/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 and 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, TOAP 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AABCI8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 5959/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 IDBI Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistan…

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member I.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue vs. M/s Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [PAN: AAACC9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 M/s Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court,…

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ', कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member I.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 & I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 M/s Merino Industries Ltd DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Revenue vs. Assessee M/s Merino Industries Ltd. 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee…