Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

372 ITR 694High Court2015#63 most cited

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

Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. This principle also applies when computing book profits under section 115JB.

803

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · section 14A disallowance · exempt income expenditure limit · Rule 8D · section 115JB book profit · disallowance cannot exceed exempt income · Joint Investments · Delhi High Court 2015

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 8DSection 115JBSection 143(2)Section 10AASection 10B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

disallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 14asection 37section 10salaryprevious yearsection 80section 14companyindiatransfer

Judgments citing Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Mansi Finance Chennai Limited, Chennai vs. The ACIT, CC-4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 108/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

…wance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.” 22. By referring to various case law including the decision in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned during the previous year. In view of the above legal position, we set aside the order of the ld. CI…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, (OSD), Circle -1, Solapur vs. M/S. Lokmangal Sugar Ethenol and Co-Generation Industries Ltd, Solapur

ITA 1036/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…ving Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 1036/PUN/2018, both the parties conceded very fairly that the assessee had indeed derived exempt income of Rs. 12000/- in the relevant previous year. Faced with this situation, we follow Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of exempt income only. The Assessing Officer shall frame his consequential computation on very lines accordingly. The Revenue’s former substantive ground in its second appeal i.e. ITA No. 1036/PUN/2018 is partly allowed to the limited extent. 5. The Revenue’s latter substantive ground in…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, (OSD), Circle -1, Solapur vs. M/S. Lokmangal Sugar Ethenol and Co-Generation Industries Ltd, Solapur

ITA 1035/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…ving Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 1036/PUN/2018, both the parties conceded very fairly that the assessee had indeed derived exempt income of Rs. 12000/- in the relevant previous year. Faced with this situation, we follow Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of exempt income only. The Assessing Officer shall frame his consequential computation on very lines accordingly. The Revenue’s former substantive ground in its second appeal i.e. ITA No. 1036/PUN/2018 is partly allowed to the limited extent. 5. The Revenue’s latter substantive ground in…

ACIT- CC - 4(2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2527/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…46 K Raheja Corporate Sevices Pvt Ltd ITA. Nos. 2521 to 2527/Mum/2021 AYs. 2012-13 to 2018-19 which was reduced to Rs. 8 crores by the CIT(A). Following the decision of this court in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 295/233 Taxman 117/372 ITR 694, the ITAT restricted the disallowance to the income earned i.e. Rs. 3.17 lakhs. So, there is no infirmity in this approach. No question of law arises.” 43. The SLP filed by the Revenue against the above judgement has since been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.08.2019 (114 taxmann.com 98) and therefore the decision o…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2526/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…46 K Raheja Corporate Sevices Pvt Ltd ITA. Nos. 2521 to 2527/Mum/2021 AYs. 2012-13 to 2018-19 which was reduced to Rs. 8 crores by the CIT(A). Following the decision of this court in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 295/233 Taxman 117/372 ITR 694, the ITAT restricted the disallowance to the income earned i.e. Rs. 3.17 lakhs. So, there is no infirmity in this approach. No question of law arises.” 43. The SLP filed by the Revenue against the above judgement has since been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.08.2019 (114 taxmann.com 98) and therefore the decision o…

ACIT-CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. K . Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2525/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…46 K Raheja Corporate Sevices Pvt Ltd ITA. Nos. 2521 to 2527/Mum/2021 AYs. 2012-13 to 2018-19 which was reduced to Rs. 8 crores by the CIT(A). Following the decision of this court in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 295/233 Taxman 117/372 ITR 694, the ITAT restricted the disallowance to the income earned i.e. Rs. 3.17 lakhs. So, there is no infirmity in this approach. No question of law arises.” 43. The SLP filed by the Revenue against the above judgement has since been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.08.2019 (114 taxmann.com 98) and therefore the decision o…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2524/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…46 K Raheja Corporate Sevices Pvt Ltd ITA. Nos. 2521 to 2527/Mum/2021 AYs. 2012-13 to 2018-19 which was reduced to Rs. 8 crores by the CIT(A). Following the decision of this court in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 295/233 Taxman 117/372 ITR 694, the ITAT restricted the disallowance to the income earned i.e. Rs. 3.17 lakhs. So, there is no infirmity in this approach. No question of law arises.” 43. The SLP filed by the Revenue against the above judgement has since been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.08.2019 (114 taxmann.com 98) and therefore the decision o…

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2523/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…46 K Raheja Corporate Sevices Pvt Ltd ITA. Nos. 2521 to 2527/Mum/2021 AYs. 2012-13 to 2018-19 which was reduced to Rs. 8 crores by the CIT(A). Following the decision of this court in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 295/233 Taxman 117/372 ITR 694, the ITAT restricted the disallowance to the income earned i.e. Rs. 3.17 lakhs. So, there is no infirmity in this approach. No question of law arises.” 43. The SLP filed by the Revenue against the above judgement has since been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.08.2019 (114 taxmann.com 98) and therefore the decision o…

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2522/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…46 K Raheja Corporate Sevices Pvt Ltd ITA. Nos. 2521 to 2527/Mum/2021 AYs. 2012-13 to 2018-19 which was reduced to Rs. 8 crores by the CIT(A). Following the decision of this court in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 295/233 Taxman 117/372 ITR 694, the ITAT restricted the disallowance to the income earned i.e. Rs. 3.17 lakhs. So, there is no infirmity in this approach. No question of law arises.” 43. The SLP filed by the Revenue against the above judgement has since been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.08.2019 (114 taxmann.com 98) and therefore the decision o…

ACIT - CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2521/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…46 K Raheja Corporate Sevices Pvt Ltd ITA. Nos. 2521 to 2527/Mum/2021 AYs. 2012-13 to 2018-19 which was reduced to Rs. 8 crores by the CIT(A). Following the decision of this court in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 295/233 Taxman 117/372 ITR 694, the ITAT restricted the disallowance to the income earned i.e. Rs. 3.17 lakhs. So, there is no infirmity in this approach. No question of law arises.” 43. The SLP filed by the Revenue against the above judgement has since been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.08.2019 (114 taxmann.com 98) and therefore the decision o…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Clp India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 249/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Clp India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Chanakya Building, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Off. Ashram Road, Navrangpura, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacg 7999 P

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR &
Section 14A

…allowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D to Rs. 1,02,82,049/-. The Tribunal, while restricting the disallowance to Rs. 55,604/-, relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 holding that disallowance of expenditure in terms of section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income itself. Our High Court has also adopted the similar view in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 97. 3. Tax appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 5. As we can see, assessee total dividend in…

Clp India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 162/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Clp India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Chanakya Building, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Off. Ashram Road, Navrangpura, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacg 7999 P

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR &
Section 14A

…allowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D to Rs. 1,02,82,049/-. The Tribunal, while restricting the disallowance to Rs. 55,604/-, relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 holding that disallowance of expenditure in terms of section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income itself. Our High Court has also adopted the similar view in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 97. 3. Tax appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 5. As we can see, assessee total dividend in…

Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Cir -6(2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 929/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…le 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, but restricted disallowances computed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of exempt income earned for the relevant assessment year by following decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 694. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 13. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income, even though the assessee has demonstrated with necessary evidences that it does not incur any expenditure towa…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 829/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…le 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, but restricted disallowances computed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of exempt income earned for the relevant assessment year by following decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 694. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 13. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income, even though the assessee has demonstrated with necessary evidences that it does not incur any expenditure towa…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 301/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…le 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, but restricted disallowances computed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of exempt income earned for the relevant assessment year by following decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 694. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 13. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income, even though the assessee has demonstrated with necessary evidences that it does not incur any expenditure towa…

M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2150/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…le 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, but restricted disallowances computed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of exempt income earned for the relevant assessment year by following decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 694. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 13. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income, even though the assessee has demonstrated with necessary evidences that it does not incur any expenditure towa…

M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2149/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…le 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, but restricted disallowances computed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of exempt income earned for the relevant assessment year by following decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 694. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 13. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income, even though the assessee has demonstrated with necessary evidences that it does not incur any expenditure towa…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2078/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…le 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, but restricted disallowances computed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of exempt income earned for the relevant assessment year by following decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 694. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 13. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income, even though the assessee has demonstrated with necessary evidences that it does not incur any expenditure towa…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2077/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…le 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, but restricted disallowances computed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of exempt income earned for the relevant assessment year by following decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 694. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 13. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income, even though the assessee has demonstrated with necessary evidences that it does not incur any expenditure towa…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 3219/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…le 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, but restricted disallowances computed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of exempt income earned for the relevant assessment year by following decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 694. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 13. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income, even though the assessee has demonstrated with necessary evidences that it does not incur any expenditure towa…