(i) Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. DCIT

140 TTJ 73Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#5768 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing (i) Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 973/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R., Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s. Karnataka State Beverages Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Corporation Lt., of Income Tax, 4th Floor, TTMC Building, ‘A’ Block, Circle 4(1)(1), BMTC, Shanthinagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. PAN: AACCK 1421A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Chetan R., Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, A…

RAVI MOHAN GEHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cen Cir 40, Ravi Mohan Gehi, Piramal Chambers B/6, Navkar Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Pin- Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aeppg1674M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Pradip Kanasi, Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Michael, Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 29.07.2020 : Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2020 :

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kanasi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Michael, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 57

…e presumed that such investments were made from interest free funds and not loaned funds and, thus no disallowance under section 14A being can be made. The above contention of the appellant is supported by the following decisions; a) Balaram Chini Mills Ltd., 140 TTJ 73 (Kol) [A.Y.2008- 091 b; Mohan Exports, 138 ITD 108 (Delhi) [A.Y.2008-09] Delite Enterp--ise, 135 'TTJ 663(Mum) [A.Y.2003-04] d) BNP Paribas SA, 32 twunann.com 276 (Bombay) (2013) e) GIDC Ltd (Gujarat) 37 taxmann.com 254 (2013) [A.Y.2004-05] f) Reliance Utilities, 313 ITR 340 (Born.) [A.Y.1999-00] g) UTI Bank Ltd. 32 taxrnann.com 370 (Gujarat) (201…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 23(2), NEW DELHI vs. SICPA INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 7483/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.704/Kol./2015 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Sicpa India Private Ltd., vs. Addl.CIT, Range 8, (formerly known as Sicpa India Ltd.) Kolkata. C/o Newby Teas Overseas (P) Ltd., 9A, 2nd Floor, 23A, N.S. Road, Kolkata – 700 016. (PAN : AADCS6121L) ITA No.1586/Kol./2016 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Sicpa India Private Ltd., vs. DCIT, Range 8, (formerly known as Sicpa India Ltd.) Kolkata. C/o Newby Teas Overseas (P) Ltd., 9A, 2nd Floor, 23A, N.S. Road, Kolkata…

SICPA INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 23(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 7048/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.704/Kol./2015 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Sicpa India Private Ltd., vs. Addl.CIT, Range 8, (formerly known as Sicpa India Ltd.) Kolkata. C/o Newby Teas Overseas (P) Ltd., 9A, 2nd Floor, 23A, N.S. Road, Kolkata – 700 016. (PAN : AADCS6121L) ITA No.1586/Kol./2016 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Sicpa India Private Ltd., vs. DCIT, Range 8, (formerly known as Sicpa India Ltd.) Kolkata. C/o Newby Teas Overseas (P) Ltd., 9A, 2nd Floor, 23A, N.S. Road, Kolkata…

M/S CHENGMARI TEA CO. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1433/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Bhattacharyya, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 14A

…rities. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata bench in the case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA NO.1331/Kol/2011 for A.Y.2008-09 dated 19.06.2013. He also relied on the decision of ITAT in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills in 140 TTJ 73 wherein the Tribunal held that section 14A r.w. r.8D can be invoked when the AO is not satisfied having regards to the accounts of the assessee that the claim of the expenses made by the assessee is not correct. Reference was also made to a similar ruling of the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons vs CIT 201 T…

DY. C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 360/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8Q

…) 103 TTJ 369 (Del TAT). f. Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (2007) 12 SOT 625 (Coch –ITAT) g. Birla Group Holdings Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007)13 SOT 642 (Mum-ITAT) h. Auchte] Products Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 39 (Mum-ITAT) i. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs DCJT (2011)140 TTJ 73 (Kol-ITAT) j. ACIT VS' Mohan Exports P. Ltd. (2012) 138 ITD 108 (Delhi-ITAT) k. Bio Science P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012)51 SOT 16 (Mum-ITAT) l. ACIT Vs Sil Investment Lid (20] 0) 54 SOT 54 (Del. ITAT) m. ACIT Vs Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. 118 TTHJ 228 (Del-ITAT) n. RIE Agro Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) TS-271-1TAT 2013 (Kol) It was also submitted that the Assessing…

DY. C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 359/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8Q

…) 103 TTJ 369 (Del TAT). f. Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (2007) 12 SOT 625 (Coch –ITAT) g. Birla Group Holdings Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007)13 SOT 642 (Mum-ITAT) h. Auchte] Products Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 39 (Mum-ITAT) i. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs DCJT (2011)140 TTJ 73 (Kol-ITAT) j. ACIT VS' Mohan Exports P. Ltd. (2012) 138 ITD 108 (Delhi-ITAT) k. Bio Science P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012)51 SOT 16 (Mum-ITAT) l. ACIT Vs Sil Investment Lid (20] 0) 54 SOT 54 (Del. ITAT) m. ACIT Vs Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. 118 TTHJ 228 (Del-ITAT) n. RIE Agro Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) TS-271-1TAT 2013 (Kol) It was also submitted that the Assessing…

DY. C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 358/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8Q

…) 103 TTJ 369 (Del TAT). f. Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (2007) 12 SOT 625 (Coch –ITAT) g. Birla Group Holdings Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007)13 SOT 642 (Mum-ITAT) h. Auchte] Products Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 39 (Mum-ITAT) i. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs DCJT (2011)140 TTJ 73 (Kol-ITAT) j. ACIT VS' Mohan Exports P. Ltd. (2012) 138 ITD 108 (Delhi-ITAT) k. Bio Science P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012)51 SOT 16 (Mum-ITAT) l. ACIT Vs Sil Investment Lid (20] 0) 54 SOT 54 (Del. ITAT) m. ACIT Vs Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. 118 TTHJ 228 (Del-ITAT) n. RIE Agro Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) TS-271-1TAT 2013 (Kol) It was also submitted that the Assessing…

EXIM SCRIPS DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2500/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 2500/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Pan: Aaace6906E) Circle-5, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Girish Sharma, FCA, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Choudhury, JCIT
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14A

…AO under section is sine qua non and the absence of such recording of satisfaction renders the application of Rule 8D vitiated. For this purpose he placed reliance on decisions of coordinate Benches of Tribunal in M/s Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd vs DCIT (2011) 140 TTJ 73, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd vs. DCIT (2012) ITA No. 47/Kol/2012. He also placed reliance on a decision reported in Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors Vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 0162 (Del), and the decision of the jurisdictional High court in CIT Vs. Ashish Jhunjhunwala, G.A. No. 2990 of 2013. On the other side, Argument of the learned DR is that the le…

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) ITA No.304-05 & 559/Kol/2008 A.Y 03-04 Graphit e India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Rng-11, Kol. Page 14 Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) Further, Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 140 TTJ 73 (Kol)(UO) has categorically held that expenditure which does not have first degree relation with the eligible unit cannot be considered for allocation to the eligible unit. Similar view is also expressed recently by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 599/Kol/2012 dated 04.12.2015 and also by the Mumbai ITAT…

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 305/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) ITA No.304-05 & 559/Kol/2008 A.Y 03-04 Graphit e India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Rng-11, Kol. Page 14 Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) Further, Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 140 TTJ 73 (Kol)(UO) has categorically held that expenditure which does not have first degree relation with the eligible unit cannot be considered for allocation to the eligible unit. Similar view is also expressed recently by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 599/Kol/2012 dated 04.12.2015 and also by the Mumbai ITAT…

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 304/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) ITA No.304-05 & 559/Kol/2008 A.Y 03-04 Graphit e India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Rng-11, Kol. Page 14 Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) Further, Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 140 TTJ 73 (Kol)(UO) has categorically held that expenditure which does not have first degree relation with the eligible unit cannot be considered for allocation to the eligible unit. Similar view is also expressed recently by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 599/Kol/2012 dated 04.12.2015 and also by the Mumbai ITAT…

DIPSC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I T CIR - VI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 891/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Sumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234

…ding of satisfaction by the AO is sine qua non, and the absence of such recording of satisfaction vitiates the application of Rule 8D. For this purpose, he relied on decisions of coordinate Benches of Tribunal in M/s Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd vs. DCIT (2011) 140 TTJ 73, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd vs. DCIT (2012) ITA No. 47/Kol/2012. He also placed reliance on a decision reported in MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. & ORS. vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 0162 (Del) for the principle that even prior to the introduction of sub-ss. (2) and (3), Section 14A would require the AO to first reject the claim of the assessee with regard…

DPSC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1656/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Sumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234

…ding of satisfaction by the AO is sine qua non, and the absence of such recording of satisfaction vitiates the application of Rule 8D. For this purpose, he relied on decisions of coordinate Benches of Tribunal in M/s Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd vs. DCIT (2011) 140 TTJ 73, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd vs. DCIT (2012) ITA No. 47/Kol/2012. He also placed reliance on a decision reported in MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. & ORS. vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 0162 (Del) for the principle that even prior to the introduction of sub-ss. (2) and (3), Section 14A would require the AO to first reject the claim of the assessee with regard…

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SICPA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 599/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 80I

…in the context of income is also applicable for the allocation of expenses as held by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Balarampur Chini I.T.A. No. 599/KOL./2012 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 3 of 3 Mills Limited –vs.- DCIT reported in 140 TTJ 73. In the said case, it was held by the Tribunal that expenses incurred by the assesese under the general head of Office Expenses, which are not directly incurred for the eligible Unit, cannot be said to have first degree connection with such Unit so as to reduce the same on pro rata basis for computing the profit of such Unit eligible for deduction…

DCIT vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…cedent and therefore his action in making the disallowance under section 14A of the Act in the manner he did is not sustainable. In support of this argument, the learned A.R. placed reliance in the following decisions :- (i) Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. V DCIT 140 TTJ 73 (ITAT, Kolkata) (ii) Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. V Addl. CIT 33 CCH 619 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also not applied the law as laid down in the above judicial pronouncements (supra) and therefore the disallowance under section 14A of the Act ought to be deleted. 8.4 Per con…

DCIT vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 652/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…cedent and therefore his action in making the disallowance under section 14A of the Act in the manner he did is not sustainable. In support of this argument, the learned A.R. placed reliance in the following decisions :- (i) Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. V DCIT 140 TTJ 73 (ITAT, Kolkata) (ii) Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. V Addl. CIT 33 CCH 619 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also not applied the law as laid down in the above judicial pronouncements (supra) and therefore the disallowance under section 14A of the Act ought to be deleted. 8.4 Per con…

UNITED SPIRITS LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…cedent and therefore his action in making the disallowance under section 14A of the Act in the manner he did is not sustainable. In support of this argument, the learned A.R. placed reliance in the following decisions :- (i) Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. V DCIT 140 TTJ 73 (ITAT, Kolkata) (ii) Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. V Addl. CIT 33 CCH 619 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also not applied the law as laid down in the above judicial pronouncements (supra) and therefore the disallowance under section 14A of the Act ought to be deleted. 8.4 Per con…

UNITED SPIRTIS LIMITED vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…cedent and therefore his action in making the disallowance under section 14A of the Act in the manner he did is not sustainable. In support of this argument, the learned A.R. placed reliance in the following decisions :- (i) Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. V DCIT 140 TTJ 73 (ITAT, Kolkata) (ii) Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. V Addl. CIT 33 CCH 619 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also not applied the law as laid down in the above judicial pronouncements (supra) and therefore the disallowance under section 14A of the Act ought to be deleted. 8.4 Per con…

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1277/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…cedent and therefore his action in making the disallowance under section 14A of the Act in the manner he did is not sustainable. In support of this argument, the learned A.R. placed reliance in the following decisions :- (i) Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. V DCIT 140 TTJ 73 (ITAT, Kolkata) (ii) Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. V Addl. CIT 33 CCH 619 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also not applied the law as laid down in the above judicial pronouncements (supra) and therefore the disallowance under section 14A of the Act ought to be deleted. 8.4 Per con…