ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd.

117 ITD 169Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#659 most cited
151

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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.

DCIT - 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Housing Development Finance Corporartion Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2861/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advoc

…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 RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2609/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…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 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2326/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh

…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 CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2093/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

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 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2866/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and
Section 1

…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 CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5442/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

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…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5707/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocat

…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 CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4314/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

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…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4315/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

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…

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 4161/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and
Section 1

…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…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 270A

…8796.82 lacs is directed to be deleted." 6. With this factual background, we have heard both the sides. Learned DR has primarily placed reliance on a decision of respected Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO V/s. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITD 169 (Mum) (SB). Learned DR has also pleaded that in one of the assessment year, i.e., in A.Y. 2007-08 learned CIT(A) had sustained the same nature of addition. From the facts of the case, we have noted that there was re-structuring according to which erstwhile GEB was demerged into seven different companies. Post restructuring; the assessment year un…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 270A

…8796.82 lacs is directed to be deleted." 6. With this factual background, we have heard both the sides. Learned DR has primarily placed reliance on a decision of respected Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO V/s. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITD 169 (Mum) (SB). Learned DR has also pleaded that in one of the assessment year, i.e., in A.Y. 2007-08 learned CIT(A) had sustained the same nature of addition. From the facts of the case, we have noted that there was re-structuring according to which erstwhile GEB was demerged into seven different companies. Post restructuring; the assessment year un…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Cirecle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. & Shri Jimi Patel , A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 318/Ahd/2020 (Assessment Years: 2016-17) Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhuvan, Income Tax, Race Course Circle, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara-390007 Vadodara [PAN No.AACCG2861L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 414/Ahd/2020 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ltd., Vadodara Corporate Office, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 [PAN No. AABCD89…

Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…ent proceedings that the assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax but has not disallowed any corresponding expenditure. The AO observed that in the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Daga Management Pvt. Ltd. (117 ITD 169) where it was held that the provisions of section 14A would apply to securities and shares held as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the AO made a disallowance of Rs. 2,65,440/-. The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the investments are very old and that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure during the year under consideration for earnin…

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…ent proceedings that the assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax but has not disallowed any corresponding expenditure. The AO observed that in the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Daga Management Pvt. Ltd. (117 ITD 169) where it was held that the provisions of section 14A would apply to securities and shares held as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the AO made a disallowance of Rs. 2,65,440/-. The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the investments are very old and that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure during the year under consideration for earnin…

Sanofi India Ltd Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…ent proceedings that the assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax but has not disallowed any corresponding expenditure. The AO observed that in the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Daga Management Pvt. Ltd. (117 ITD 169) where it was held that the provisions of section 14A would apply to securities and shares held as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the AO made a disallowance of Rs. 2,65,440/-. The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the investments are very old and that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure during the year under consideration for earnin…