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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Ownership Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly

ITA 320/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 09.12.2021
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद%य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.320/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. Shriram Ownership Trust Shriram House, 3rd floor, Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-2(1), 4,Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai-600 017. PAN: AAGTS 2243H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr.…

ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela vs. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…oks of accounts and financial statement of the assessee. Ld A.R. has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Sesa Goa Ltd vs JCIT, 60 sot 121 (Pan) ii) JK Investors Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No.7858/Mum/2011) iii) Joint Investments Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) iv) Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC) v) DCIT vs Integrated Coal Mining Ltd (ITA No.1031/Kol/2017). 63. Furthermore, ld A.R. submitted that therefore, if the AO, having regards to the assessee is not satisfied with the amount of P a g e 48 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 the claim of t…

Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…oks of accounts and financial statement of the assessee. Ld A.R. has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Sesa Goa Ltd vs JCIT, 60 sot 121 (Pan) ii) JK Investors Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No.7858/Mum/2011) iii) Joint Investments Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) iv) Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT, 402 ITR 640 (SC) v) DCIT vs Integrated Coal Mining Ltd (ITA No.1031/Kol/2017). 63. Furthermore, ld A.R. submitted that therefore, if the AO, having regards to the assessee is not satisfied with the amount of P a g e 48 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 the claim of t…

T.V. Today Network Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7287/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to this amount. 10. The undisputed fact is that the assessee has earned exempt dividend income of Rs.18, 521/– only. But when the assessee filed return of income, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 372 ITR 694 was not available with the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court has restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income. 11. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builders and Construction 414 ITR 122. Since now we have the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi we direct the…

JCIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. T.V. Today Network Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7277/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to this amount. 10. The undisputed fact is that the assessee has earned exempt dividend income of Rs.18, 521/– only. But when the assessee filed return of income, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 372 ITR 694 was not available with the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court has restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income. 11. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builders and Construction 414 ITR 122. Since now we have the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi we direct the…

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…rs Ltd. vs. CIT: 398 ITR 51 (Del) viii. PCIT vs. U.K. Paints (India) (P.) Ltd.: 392 ITR 552 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.: 380 ITR 652 (P&H) x. CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd: 378 ITR 240 (Del) xi. Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del) xii. CIT v. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd.: 370 ITR 338 (Del.) 42. It was further submitted that even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses with investments, warranting disallowance under section 14A. 43. With respect to the interest expenditure, it was submitted that the appellant…

ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi vs. Mvl Credit Holdings & Leasing Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4344/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Senior DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…voking the provisions contained u/s 14A read with Rule 8D proceeded to make disallowance at Rs.1,85,95,109/-. 5 ITA No.4344/Del./2017 Ld. CIT (A) following the decision rendered by Hon’ble 7. Delhi High Court in case of Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 restricted the disallowance to the extent of dividend income i.e. Rs.9,45,651/- earned by the assessee company during the year under consideration by returning following findings :- “3.2.3 The contentions of the AO and submissions of the appellant have been duly considered. Respectfully following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court of De…

M/S Chowgule Real Estate & Construction Company Private Limited, Panaji vs. The ACIT, Circle - 2, Margao

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Pan/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Chowgule Real Estate & Construction Company Private Limited, Office No.311, 1St Floor, Casa Del Sol, Opp. Marriot Hotel, Miramar, Panaji- Goa- 403001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacc6040M बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2, ……""यथ" / Respondent Margao. Assessee By : Shri Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji. (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 09.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Private Limited Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Developers Etc. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Was Filed On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,51,117/- & Also Offered To Book Profits To Tax U/S 115Jb Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Of Rs.2,23,62,741/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115JSection 14ASection 41(1)

…yielded the exempt income alone has to be taken into consideration as held by the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited vs. CIT 372 ITR 694. From perusal of the assessment order, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer had considered the entire value of investments which yielded the taxable income as well as the exempt income. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to compute the amount of disallowance under sub-clause (iii) of Ru…

ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Hero Motors Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5580/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satiesh Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, CIT DR
Section 14A

…ng the facts in the light of the law applicable thereto. Consequently, this issue is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in the light of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of as Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT – (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. So, Grounds No.1 & 2 in ITA Nos.5579/Del/2017 & 5580/Del/2017 are determined in favour of the Revenue for statistical purposes. GROUDNS NO.1 & 2 IN ITA NO.5579/DEL/20117 ITA NO.5580/DEL/20117 8. Disallowance of Rs.31,74,04…

ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Hero Motors Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5579/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satiesh Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, CIT DR
Section 14A

…ng the facts in the light of the law applicable thereto. Consequently, this issue is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in the light of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of as Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT – (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. So, Grounds No.1 & 2 in ITA Nos.5579/Del/2017 & 5580/Del/2017 are determined in favour of the Revenue for statistical purposes. GROUDNS NO.1 & 2 IN ITA NO.5579/DEL/20117 ITA NO.5580/DEL/20117 8. Disallowance of Rs.31,74,04…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acquire Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3192/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Acquire Services Pvt. Circle – 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi Ground Floor, Central Wing, 124, Janpath Thapar House, Janpath Pan No. Aaacg 3351 K New Delhi-110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Shri Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…d that as against the total operating in other expenses of Rs.87,51,000/- incurred by the assessee, the disallowance worked out by AO by invoking section 14A is almost double and that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.) had held that Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the entire exempt income is to be disallowed. He submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has further held that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should be based on the scrutiny of accounts of the assessee. He further submitted that CIT(A) after examining the de…

Bennett Coleman & Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2433/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Bennett Coleman Vs. Acit – 1(1)(1) & Company Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aaykar The Times Of India Bhavan, Churchgate, Bldg, Dn Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb4373Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 1(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bennett Coleman 5Th Floor, Aaykar & Company Ltd., Bhavan, Churchgate, The Times Of India Mumbai – 400020. Bldg, Dn Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb4373Q Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Appellant/Respondent Shri Srinivasan By : Venkataraman.Ar Respondent/Appellant Shri. K.C. Selvamani. Dr By : Date Of Hearing 23.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A(1)Section 23(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Bennett Coleman Vs. ACIT – 1(1)(1) & Company Ltd., 5th Floor, Aaykar The Times of India Bhavan, Churchgate, Bldg, DN Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACB4373Q Appellant .. Respondent DCIT – 1(1)(1) Vs. M/s. Bennett Coleman 5th Floor, Aaykar & Company Ltd., Bhavan, Churchgate, The Times of India Mumbai – 400020. Bldg, DN Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACB4373Q Appellant/Resp…

M/S. Gmr Enterprises Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2310/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner Of (Successor To Gmr Holdings P.Ltd) Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(2) V. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccr1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Yogesh Thar, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.10.20199 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Various Sub Grounds. The Assessee By Its Application Dated 13.07.2020 Has Also Raised An Additional Ground. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted That Grounds No.Ii & Iii May Be Adjudicated & The Other Grounds May Be Left Open. Therefore, Grounds No.Ii & Iii Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Sri.Yogesh Thar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM and Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM IT(TP)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/s.GMR Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner of (Successor to GMR Holdings P.Ltd) Income-tax, Central Circle 2(2) v. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. PAN : AACCR1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Yogesh Thar, CA Respondent by : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is…

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Usha International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7184/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit Usha International Ltd. Circle – 27 (1) Vs Flat No.1005, Surya Kiran New Delhi Building, 19-K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaact0066A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14Section 14ASection 36

…extent of dividend income. 5.3 In view of decision of my predecessors in the case of the appellant company in appeals for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 and following the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del), CIT v. Holcim India P. Ltd., (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282 and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules is restricted to Rs. 7,12,047/- i.e. the amount of dividend income. Since the assessee company has already made disallowance of Rs. 3,44,109/-. Further disallowa…

DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi vs. Icra Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 are allowed partly for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5707/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 And Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. ICRA Ltd., Circel-12(1), 1105, Kailash Building, New Delhi 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACI0218B (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. No.8/Del/2018 [Arising out of ITA No.5707/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2012-13 ICRA Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 1105, Kailash Building, Circel-12(1), 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba New Delhi Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACI0218B (Appellant) (Respondent) De…

DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi vs. Icra Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 are allowed partly for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5706/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12 And Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. ICRA Ltd., Circel-12(1), 1105, Kailash Building, New Delhi 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACI0218B (Appellant) (Respondent) And C.O. No.8/Del/2018 [Arising out of ITA No.5707/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2012-13 ICRA Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 1105, Kailash Building, Circel-12(1), 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba New Delhi Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACI0218B (Appellant) (Respondent) De…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moser Baer Solar Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are partly allowed

ITA 3577/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Senior DR
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…es below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. We have perused the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) who has decided the issue by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. – 370 ITR 338 (Del.) by returning following findings :- “4.3 I have carefully perused the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant on this issue. It is the fact that during the year in appeal appellant has earned dividend income of Rs.2,33,95,428/-, which it has claimed exempt u/s 10(34)…

Competent Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2051/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 14A

…y the assessee of the suo-moto disallowance. Such satisfaction of the Assessing Officer must be based on some reasoning after consulting the accounts of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. 5 | P a g e Ltd. vs CIT (372 ITR 694) (Del.) has held that section 14 of the Act or Rule 6D cannot be interpret so as to mean that the entire tax-exempt income of the assessee is to be disallowed. That the window for disallowance indicated in section 14A is only to the extent of disallowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax-exempt income. This proport…

Tv Today Network Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3356/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 14ASection 196Section 40Section 43B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3356/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) TV Today Network Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT(A) F-26, First Flooor, Connaught Special Range-9 Circus, New Delhi New Delhi AABCT0424B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr., Adv, Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv & Sh. M. Aggarwal, Adv Respondent by Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement 05.10.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is fi…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Dcm Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8137/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr.D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.8137/DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Addl. CIT, Special Range-3 vs. DCM Ltd., New Delhi. 601, Vikrant Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD1012E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri V.P. Gupta, Adv. Respondent by: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 30 09 2021 Date of pronouncement: 30 09 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 31.10.2018, p…