CIT v. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd.

372 ITR 69High Court2015#5899 most cited

What is CIT v. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the financial year.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. · section 14A · disallowance · exempt income · restricted to exempt income · State Bank of Patiala · Delhi High Court · taxman.com

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 132Section 135Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

disallowance u/s 14asection 14adisallowance under section 14asection 10previous yearcompanysection 14indiabusinessinteresttotal incomedocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

ITA 3038/MUM/2025[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

…made u/s. 14A r.w.r 8DD should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 taxman.com 286 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 69 (Delhi) held that disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the appellant. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court, disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income shown by the appellant. In decision of Caraf Builders and Constructions P Ltd.,] 101 taxmann.com 167 (Delh…

HUBTOWN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1601/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

…made u/s. 14A r.w.r 8DD should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 taxman.com 286 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 69 (Delhi) held that disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the appellant. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court, disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income shown by the appellant. In decision of Caraf Builders and Constructions P Ltd.,] 101 taxmann.com 167 (Delh…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI vs. SARA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3388/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3388/Del/2024, (A.Y.2016-17)

Section 14A

…based on the settled position of law in the following Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 com and the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 69, wherein it is held that the disallowance to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the Assessee. Thus, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly we find no merit in the Grounds of appeal of the Revenue. 7.In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is d…

DCIT-CC-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S LAXMI ENERGY & FOODS LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 33/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 33/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Laxmi Energy & Foods बनाम Ltd., Central Circle-Iii, Sco 18-19, Sector 9-D, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl3147J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 14A

…Del/2013 (c) DCIT vs Anant Raj Limited (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No. 625 & 626/Mum/2023 "Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 taxmann. com 286 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 69 (Delhi) held 33-Chd-2021 Laxmi Energy and Foods Ltd, Chandigarh 12 that disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court, we direct the A.O to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, we…

DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GANESHAY OVERSEAS INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 253/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 200/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2012-13 M/s Ganeshay Overseas Ind. Ltd., The DCIT, बनाम SCO 18-19, Ist Floor, Sector 9-D, Central Circle-1, VS Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AABCG8778M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 253/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2018-19 The DCIT, M/s Ganeshay Overseas Ind. Ltd., बनाम Central…

M/S GANESHAY OVERSEAS INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 200/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2012-13 M/s Ganeshay Overseas Ind. Ltd., The DCIT, बनाम SCO 18-19, Ist Floor, Sector 9-D, Central Circle-1, VS Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AABCG8778M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 253/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2018-19 The DCIT, M/s Ganeshay Overseas Ind. Ltd., बनाम Central…

AUTUMN BUILDERS LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 883/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 142(1)

…). This is a settled position that no disallowance is to be made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D where there is no exempt income as has been decided in the case of PCIT Vs State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 taxman.com 286(SC) and CIT Vs Joint Investment Pvt Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 69 (Delhi) 14. We have also noted the arguments put forward by the Ld. D.R that explanation to Section 14A by Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f 01.04.2022 is explanatory in nature and retrospective and therefore disallowance was rightly made by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) irrespective of the fact that any exempt income was earned or not. However the…

DCIT, CC-6(4), MUMBAI vs. ANANT RAJ LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 626/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.625 & 626/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Anant Raj Limited Income Tax, Central E-2 Ara Centre Circle-6(4), Room No. Jhandewalan Extention, 1925, 19Th Floor, Air New Delhi – 110 055 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabca3972B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sudesh Garg Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Sinha

For Appellant: Sudesh GargFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 14A

…sallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned during the year. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 taxman.com 286 (SC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 69 (Delhi) held that disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court, we direct the A.O to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, we don’t find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A).…

DCIT, CC-6(4), MUMBAI vs. ANANT RAJ LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 625/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.625 & 626/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Anant Raj Limited Income Tax, Central E-2 Ara Centre Circle-6(4), Room No. Jhandewalan Extention, 1925, 19Th Floor, Air New Delhi – 110 055 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabca3972B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sudesh Garg Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Sinha

For Appellant: Sudesh GargFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 14A

…sallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned during the year. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 taxman.com 286 (SC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 69 (Delhi) held that disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court, we direct the A.O to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, we don’t find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A).…

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…arned exempt income of R.20,19,580/-, after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 Taxmann 286 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Joint Investments Pvt Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 69 (Del). It is settled that the disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee, since assessee itself had not made disallo…

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3003/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…arned exempt income of R.20,19,580/-, after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 Taxmann 286 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Joint Investments Pvt Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 69 (Del). It is settled that the disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee, since assessee itself had not made disallo…

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…arned exempt income of R.20,19,580/-, after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 Taxmann 286 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Joint Investments Pvt Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 69 (Del). It is settled that the disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee, since assessee itself had not made disallo…

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5631/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…arned exempt income of R.20,19,580/-, after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 Taxmann 286 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Joint Investments Pvt Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 69 (Del). It is settled that the disallowance is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee, since assessee itself had not made disallo…

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1694/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

…nts made of Rs.60,000/- in shares of M/s. Indian Overseas Bank. We make it clear that the assessee has not challenged correctness of the CIT(A)’s latter limb of directions in above terms. That being the case, we quote Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 674 (Delhi) and PCIT V/s M/s. Empire Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 81 taxmann.com 108 (P & H) to conclude that the CIT(A)’s direction in issue restricting the impugned section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone.…

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 958/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

…nts made of Rs.60,000/- in shares of M/s. Indian Overseas Bank. We make it clear that the assessee has not challenged correctness of the CIT(A)’s latter limb of directions in above terms. That being the case, we quote Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 674 (Delhi) and PCIT V/s M/s. Empire Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 81 taxmann.com 108 (P & H) to conclude that the CIT(A)’s direction in issue restricting the impugned section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 989/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

…nts made of Rs.60,000/- in shares of M/s. Indian Overseas Bank. We make it clear that the assessee has not challenged correctness of the CIT(A)’s latter limb of directions in above terms. That being the case, we quote Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 674 (Delhi) and PCIT V/s M/s. Empire Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 81 taxmann.com 108 (P & H) to conclude that the CIT(A)’s direction in issue restricting the impugned section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone.…

ITO 32(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. NISHA MAYUR KAMDAR, MUMBAI

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 405/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.405/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) Nisha Mayur Kamdar बनाम/ Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor 705, Shashi Apartment C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Bhawan Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai – 400 092 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5742/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nisha Mayur Kamdar Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) 705, Shashi Apartment Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Mumbai – 400 092 Bhawan Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Anil Thakrar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Aarju Garodia, Ld. Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…rieved, the assessee contested the same with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 23/03/2015 where Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 6.54% by making following observations:- It has been held in the case of M/s Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 69 (Bom) by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi Oil Traders Vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been…

NISHA KAMDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 5742/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.405/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) Nisha Mayur Kamdar बनाम/ Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor 705, Shashi Apartment C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Bhawan Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai – 400 092 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5742/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nisha Mayur Kamdar Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) 705, Shashi Apartment Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Mumbai – 400 092 Bhawan Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Anil Thakrar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Aarju Garodia, Ld. Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…rieved, the assessee contested the same with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 23/03/2015 where Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 6.54% by making following observations:- It has been held in the case of M/s Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 69 (Bom) by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi Oil Traders Vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been…

M/S. VIPUL LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2549/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…arned by the assessee in the year under consideration. In these circumstances, relying upon the position rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Holcim India Pvt.Ltd. [2014] 90 CCH 081 (Delhi HC) and Joint Investment Pvt.Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 674 (Delhi) which had been followed by the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. in ITA No.4320/Del/2014 vide order dated 21.10.2015 it was submitted that in the facts of the present case even on merit the assessee had a good case thus the occasion to levy penalty thereon cannot survive. 2.1. The Revenue represented by Sh. Sanjay Kuma…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KAJARIA CERAMICS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4320/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalbefore Shri R.S. Syalbefore Shri R.S. Syalbefore Shri R.S. Syal

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Jain, CA and Shri Nem Singh, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a series of judgments including CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt.Ltd. (2014) 90 CCH 081 (Del-HC) has held that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A. In Joint Investment Pvt.Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 674 (Del), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. These judicial pronouncements make it amply clear that there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A if there is no exempt income. I am confronted with a situation in which the assessee has not earned any exempt income but the disallowance…

CIT v. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 69) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax