ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd.

117 ITD 169Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#656 most cited
151

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Daga Capital Management · Daga Capital Management · 117 ITD 169 · Section 14A · Rule 8D · dividend income · shares as stock-in-trade · exempt income · business of dealing in shares · disallowance of expenditure · Special Bench ITAT

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 115JBSection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92CA(3)Section 115USection 244ASection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 80absection 70(2)section 14a(1)section 54esection 10(33)section 10(15)section 80msection 54eclong-term capital assetsection 36(1)(viii)section 111a

Judgments citing ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd.

BAJAJ CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2676/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Srushti ChawdaFor Respondent: 17/12/2025
Section 14A

…m of the assessee, hen the disallowance u/s 14A has to be calculated the disallowance u/s 14A has to be calculated within the provision of Rule 8D within the provision of Rule 8D of Income-tax Rule. 4.5.2 In the case of Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 169 Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 169 Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 169, the Hon'ble ITAT (Special Bench. Mumbai) held that Sec. 14A of the IT Act has an Hon'ble ITAT (Special Bench. Mumbai) held that Sec. 14A of the IT Act has an Hon'ble ITAT (Special Bench. Mumbai) held that Sec. 14A of the IT Act has an overridi…

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…25 ITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 & 1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019 AYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15 M/s. Coal India Ltd. 7.2 The Ld. AO also relied upon the decision of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. ІТО 124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-. 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: “6.1.3 Against the aforesaid decision the appellant filled Miscellaneous petition. The Honourable IT…

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 1407/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 1Section 115JSection 250

…essing Officer. On second appeal to the Tribunal, in view of conflicting decisions of various Benches by the Tribunal, with respect to interpretation of section 14A, a Special Bench was constituted in the case of ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. [2009] 117 ITD 169 (Mum.). The appeal of the assessee was also tagged and heard by the aforesaid Special Bench. The Special Bench held that the investment in shares representing controlling interest did not amount to carrying on of business and, therefore, interest expenditure incurred for acquiring shares in group companies was hit by the provisions of section 14A…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

…is within the special knowledge of the assessee, the assessing authority took a most reasonable approach in assessment.” 7.2 The Ld. AO also relied upon the decision of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. ІТО 124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-. 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: “6.1.3 Against the aforesaid decision the appellant filled Miscellaneous petition. The Honourable IT…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…is within the special knowledge of the assessee, the assessing authority took a most reasonable approach in assessment.” 7.2 The Ld. AO also relied upon the decision of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. ІТО 124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-. 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: “6.1.3 Against the aforesaid decision the appellant filled Miscellaneous petition. The Honourable IT…

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…26 ITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 & 1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019 AYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15 M/s. Coal India Ltd. 7.2 The Ld. AO also relied upon the decision of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. ІТО 124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-. 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: “6.1.3 Against the aforesaid decision the appellant filled Miscellaneous petition. The Honourable IT…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( FORMERLY BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

ITA 5299/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)

…8 prescribed method for determining amount of \nexpenditure in relation to income not includible in total \nincome. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of \nthe Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in case of Daga \nCapital Management Private Limited 312 ITR 1 (AT), I remit \nthe matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to \nrecalculate the disallowance as per rule 8D, as held in this \ncase on page 59 para 88 wherein it has been held that: \n \n\"As we have held that sub-sections (2) and (3) of \nSection 14A are retrospective in nature and the \nresultant rule 8D would also fall on the same…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)

…arch 2008 prescribed method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in case of Daga Capital Management Private Limited 312 ITR 1 (AT), I remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to recalculate the disallowance as per rule 8D, as held in this case on page 59 para 88 wherein it has been held that: "As we have held that sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A are retrospective in nature and the resultant rule 8D would also fall on the same to the disallo…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

ITA 2980/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate a

…o as procedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have no relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule 8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted to only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It is submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The question before the Special Bench was "Whether…

HDFC BANK LIMITED( AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2666/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

…ed to as procedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have no relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule 8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted to only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It is submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The question before the Special Bench was…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)

…o as procedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have no relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule 8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted to only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It is submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The question before the Special Bench was "Whether…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED (MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below:\n\nSr

ITA 2597/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

…\nprocedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have \nno relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special \nBench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. \n(2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule \n8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted \nto only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It \nis submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The \nquestion before the Special Bench was \"Whe…

HDFC BANK LTD.,(AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3717/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D

…ed to as procedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have no relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule 8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted to only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It is submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The question before the Special Bench was "Whether the…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2049/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…ed to as procedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have no relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule 8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted to only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It is submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The question before the Special Bench was "Whether the…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2047/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

…\nprocedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have \nno relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special \nBench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. \n(2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule \n8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted \nto only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It \nis submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The \nquestion before the Special Bench was \"Whe…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2046/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…o as procedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have no relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule 8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted to only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It is submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The question before the Special Bench was "Whether…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, DELHI

ITA 1893/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…o as procedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have no relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule 8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted to only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It is submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The question before the Special Bench was "Whether…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1890/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

…o as procedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have no relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule 8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted to only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It is submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The question before the Special Bench was "Whether…

DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5110/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

…\nprocedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have \nno relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special \nBench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. \n(2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule \n8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted \nto only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It \nis submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The \nquestion before the Special Bench was \"Whe…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4983/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

…o as\nprocedural provision. The assertions in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereinabove, have\nno relevance. In paragraph (c), reference has been made to decision of the Special\nBench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.\n(2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai SB) for the proposition that disallowance as per Rule\n8D should be made in respect of the entire investments and cannot be restricted\nto only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. It\nis submitted that the said decision does not lay down this proposition. The\nquestion before the Special Bench was "Whether…

Showing 1–20 of 151 · Page 1 of 8

...
ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. (117 ITD 169) — Cited in 151 Judgments | BharatTax