Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, Range10(2), Mumbai

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mukund Global Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Acit – 3 (2) (1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Mukund Global 3Rd Finance Ltd., Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm8384N Appellant) Respondent) ..

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM ACIT – 3 (2) (1), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Mukund Global 3rd Finance Ltd., Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACM8384N Appellant) Respondent) .. Revenue by Shri A.K.Kardam Assessee by Shri M.A.Gohel Date of Hearing 09/05/2017 Date of Pronouncement 09/05/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 8, Mumbai for the A.Y.2012-13 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. The only grievance of Reve…

Reliance Infrastructure and Consultants Ltd ( Erstwhile Reliance Infrastructure Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue also allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile M/S Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)- Mumbai-400103 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)-400103. स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaccr7678G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…e. In the facts and circumstances the appellants working of disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.11,67,648/- was not correct and was not as per provisions of section 14A of the Act. 2.3(b) As per decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boycee Mfg. Co Ltd 234 CTR 1 the provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D were applicable from A.Y. 2008-09 onward and not in earlier years retrospectively. The year under consideration is A.Y. 2008-09 and therefore provisions of section 14A and rule 80 were applicable in this year. As persub-section (1) of section 14A no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incu…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrastructure and Consultants Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue also allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile M/S Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)- Mumbai-400103 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)-400103. स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaccr7678G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…e. In the facts and circumstances the appellants working of disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.11,67,648/- was not correct and was not as per provisions of section 14A of the Act. 2.3(b) As per decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boycee Mfg. Co Ltd 234 CTR 1 the provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D were applicable from A.Y. 2008-09 onward and not in earlier years retrospectively. The year under consideration is A.Y. 2008-09 and therefore provisions of section 14A and rule 80 were applicable in this year. As persub-section (1) of section 14A no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incu…

Narang Overseas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./46/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-5(2) 5Th Floor, Unique Centre Room No.571, 5Th Floor Vs. Water Field Rd.Bandra (W),Mumbai-50. Aayakar Bhavn M.K. Road Pan:Aabcn 5004 D Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./705/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-5(2) M/S. Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai-400 050. Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By:Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/12/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 4/11/2013 Of The Cit (A)-9, Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Media & Entertainment,Filed Its Return Of Income On 23/09/2010, Declaring Total Income At Rs. Nil.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S. 143 (3) Of The Act, On 11/03/2012, Determining Its Income At Rs. 88.66 Lakhs.

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ बी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“B”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./46/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. DCIT-5(2) 5th Floor, Unique Centre Room no.571, 5th Floor Vs. Water Field Rd.Bandra (W),Mumbai-50. Aayakar Bhavn M.K. Road PAN:AABCN 5004 D Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /A…

A.C.I.T. Circle 21(1), Mumbai vs. Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

…ture claimed in the 22 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, computation of income against any taxable income, there cannot be any disallowance of administrative expenditure also. This view is supported by the decision in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Ltd., 234 CTR 1(BOM) wherein the Court has observed as under:- Sub sec (2) does not ipso fact enable the AO to apply the method by the rules straightaway without considering whether the claim made by the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income, is correct. The AO must in the first instance,…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

…ture claimed in the 22 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, computation of income against any taxable income, there cannot be any disallowance of administrative expenditure also. This view is supported by the decision in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Ltd., 234 CTR 1(BOM) wherein the Court has observed as under:- Sub sec (2) does not ipso fact enable the AO to apply the method by the rules straightaway without considering whether the claim made by the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income, is correct. The AO must in the first instance,…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

…ture claimed in the 22 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, computation of income against any taxable income, there cannot be any disallowance of administrative expenditure also. This view is supported by the decision in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Ltd., 234 CTR 1(BOM) wherein the Court has observed as under:- Sub sec (2) does not ipso fact enable the AO to apply the method by the rules straightaway without considering whether the claim made by the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income, is correct. The AO must in the first instance,…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

…ture claimed in the 22 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, computation of income against any taxable income, there cannot be any disallowance of administrative expenditure also. This view is supported by the decision in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Ltd., 234 CTR 1(BOM) wherein the Court has observed as under:- Sub sec (2) does not ipso fact enable the AO to apply the method by the rules straightaway without considering whether the claim made by the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income, is correct. The AO must in the first instance,…

Il & Fs Employees Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 19 (3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5235/M/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Il & Fs Employees Welfare Addl. Commr. Of Income बनाम/ Trust Tax 19(3) Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai -400051 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5223/M/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax Il & Fs Employees Welfare बनाम/ 19(3) Trust Vs. Room No.305, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. C-22, G Block, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400012 Bandra(E), Mumbai -400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati0422N

…n different head. The assessment of the assessee is for the year of 2009-10. No doubt the provision u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act is applicable. It is not in dispute that the principle laid down in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 234 CTR 1 (Bom) is also applicable in this case. But while following the above said law no doubt the expenditure which has not been incurred to earn the exempt income is not liable to be considered while assessing the expenditure A.Y. 2009-10 u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. It is necessary to mentioned the detail the expenditure incurred by the assessee.…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Il & Fs Employees Welfare Trust, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5235/M/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Il & Fs Employees Welfare Addl. Commr. Of Income बनाम/ Trust Tax 19(3) Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai -400051 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5223/M/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax Il & Fs Employees Welfare बनाम/ 19(3) Trust Vs. Room No.305, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. C-22, G Block, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400012 Bandra(E), Mumbai -400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati0422N

…n different head. The assessment of the assessee is for the year of 2009-10. No doubt the provision u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act is applicable. It is not in dispute that the principle laid down in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 234 CTR 1 (Bom) is also applicable in this case. But while following the above said law no doubt the expenditure which has not been incurred to earn the exempt income is not liable to be considered while assessing the expenditure A.Y. 2009-10 u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. It is necessary to mentioned the detail the expenditure incurred by the assessee.…

Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nandraj Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

…not only direct expenditure but also all forms of expenditure regardless of whether they were fixed,variable, direct, indirect, administrative, managerial or financial. He referred to the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company 727/M/15-nandraj Ltd (234 CTR 1)of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.He further held that the disallowance had to be worked out-even if there was no exempt income, that the assessee had paid interest of Rs.96.70 lakhs on borrowing for the year, that the assessee had made investment out of the borrowed funds on which interest cost was incurred by it, that interest expenditure had to b…

Jbf Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5235/M/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Il & Fs Employees Welfare Addl. Commr. Of Income बनाम/ Trust Tax 19(3) Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai -400051 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5223/M/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax Il & Fs Employees Welfare बनाम/ 19(3) Trust Vs. Room No.305, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. C-22, G Block, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400012 Bandra(E), Mumbai -400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati0422N

…n different head. The assessment of the assessee is for the year of 2009-10. No doubt the provision u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act is applicable. It is not in dispute that the principle laid down in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 234 CTR 1 (Bom) is also applicable in this case. But while following the above said law no doubt the expenditure which has not been incurred to earn the exempt income is not liable to be considered while assessing the expenditure A.Y. 2009-10 u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. It is necessary to mentioned the detail the expenditure incurred by the assessee.…

Sonphankhi Shares & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee company appeal in ITA No 7068/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…relied upon by the assesee company. We find that Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules,1962 is applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 234 CTR 1. The assessee company has made average investments of Rs. 14.44 crores computed as per rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules,1962 . The investments made by the assessee company includes the investment of Rs.19.37 crores made in 100% subsidiary company. 13. Coming to the submission of assessee that these are strategic investments and no disallowance…

Bhupinder Investment Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6326/Mum/2011 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Bhupinder Investment बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 10(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Co. Pvt.Ltd Vs. M K Road, 27, Kirol Vidyavihar (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400086 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacb9117G अपीऱार्थी ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Ketan Panchmia प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से// Revenue By Shrimati Bharti Singh सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.5.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 9.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.5.2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Submitted Before Us That Ground No.2 Is Not Pressed, Therefore, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

…made out of surplus funds. In the facts and circumstances, the appellant's claim was not substantiated by facts that the investments were not made by use of borrowed funds. As per decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 234 CTR 1, the provisions of Rule 8D were applicable from the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 2008-09. The provisions of sec. 14A(2) r.w. Rule 80 are mandatory and any disallowance u/s.14A has to be worked out strictly as per formula provided in Rule 80 of the IT. Rules. 4 6826/Mum/2011 In the case under consideration, the AO was not satisfied with th…

Saurashtra Fuels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…relied upon by the assesee company. We find that Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules,1962 is applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 234 CTR 1. The assessee company has made average investments of Rs. 14.44 crores computed as per rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules,1962 . The investments made by the assessee company includes the investment of Rs.19.37 crores made in 100% subsidiary company. 13. Coming to the submission of assessee that these are strategic investments and no disallowance…

S.R. Brothers, Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. 19(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S S.R. Brothers, Dy. Cit-19(3), 204-205, Balrama, Bandra Room No.305, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Kurla Complex, Bandra Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. (East), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafs9880L

…as exempt u/s 10(35) of the Act. As per the assessee, no expenditure was incurred for earning the dividend income. However, the ld. Assessing Officer, by following the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd. vs DCIT 234 CTR 1 (Bom.) and in view of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the rules made disallowance of Rs.2,52,179/- which was affirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). So far as, the disallowance is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee has also no grievance but the contention raised before us is that it should be reasonable. The assessee is…