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

Nirpan Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Nirpan Securities Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 301-308, Bhagwati House Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai Veera Desai Road Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 058 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1329A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…g the year under consideration. Its trite law that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act at any point in time cannot exceed exempt income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments reported in 372 ITR 694 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640. It is not in dispute that assessee had made voluntarily disallowance in the return of income u/s.14A of the Act in the sum of Rs.21,28,837/-. Since the exempt income earned by the assessee is only Rs.54,000/-, the disallowance made u/s.14…

Harparshad and Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6588/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Officer in accordance with section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee has pleaded that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs CIT, reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempted income earned. Accordingly, he submitted that disallowance might be restricted to the exempted income of ₹ 1,11,49,211/- earned by the assessee. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited (supra) is reproduced as u…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 2005/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…cision rendered by the coordinate bench in holding that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempt income. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 694). We also notice that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) is supported by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd (2019)(101 taxmann.com 167), wherein it was held as under:- “25. Total exempt income earned by the respondent-assessee in this year was Rs. 19 lakhs. In these circumstance…

M/S Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-5(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1918/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…cision rendered by the coordinate bench in holding that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempt income. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 694). We also notice that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) is supported by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd (2019)(101 taxmann.com 167), wherein it was held as under:- “25. Total exempt income earned by the respondent-assessee in this year was Rs. 19 lakhs. In these circumstance…

M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-12, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1917/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…cision rendered by the coordinate bench in holding that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempt income. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 694). We also notice that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) is supported by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd (2019)(101 taxmann.com 167), wherein it was held as under:- “25. Total exempt income earned by the respondent-assessee in this year was Rs. 19 lakhs. In these circumstance…

M/S Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1916/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…cision rendered by the coordinate bench in holding that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempt income. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 694). We also notice that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) is supported by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd (2019)(101 taxmann.com 167), wherein it was held as under:- “25. Total exempt income earned by the respondent-assessee in this year was Rs. 19 lakhs. In these circumstance…

M/S. Kei Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.3

ITA 528/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

…by the above decisions. 25. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. It is an admitted fact that in assessment year under appeal assessee has received dividend income of Rs.2,37,896/-. In the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.) (HC) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “by no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure “incurred by assessee in relation to the tax e…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.E.I. Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.3

ITA 1433/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

…by the above decisions. 25. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. It is an admitted fact that in assessment year under appeal assessee has received dividend income of Rs.2,37,896/-. In the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.) (HC) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “by no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure “incurred by assessee in relation to the tax e…

Niraj Kumar Associates Pvt.Limited, Pashan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune

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

ITA 2246/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2246/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Niraj Kumar Associates Pvt. Ltd., 129/2, Mont Vert Marc Pashan- Sus Road, Pashan-411021. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant PAN : AAACN6424G बनाम / V/s. ACIT, Circle-2, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 08.12.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2020 आदेश…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Edelweiss Broking Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 446/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…relation to such income” implies that the expenditure cannot exceed the amount of exempted income. 148. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 wherein it was held as under: “By no stretch of imagination can s. 14A or r. 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in s. 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income". This proporti…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd., ( Formerly Known Anagram Stock Broking Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 445/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…relation to such income” implies that the expenditure cannot exceed the amount of exempted income. 148. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 wherein it was held as under: “By no stretch of imagination can s. 14A or r. 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in s. 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income". This proporti…

M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. ( Amalgamating Company Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 318/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…relation to such income” implies that the expenditure cannot exceed the amount of exempted income. 148. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 wherein it was held as under: “By no stretch of imagination can s. 14A or r. 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in s. 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income". This proporti…

Weiss Rohig (India) P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle III(3), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2552/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2552/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Weiss Rohig (India) Pvt Ltd, Vs The Acit, (Formerly Known As M/S.Tricon Shipping Corporate Circle – Iii(3), P Ltd) Chennai – 34. Olympia Platina, Plot No.33-B, South Phase, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaact4210G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT
Section 14ASection 199

…disallowance nor furnished any workings as to how the quantum of disallowance made by the AO is wrong. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is confirmed to the extent of quantum of exempt income admitted by the assessee (Joint investments P Ltd vs. CIT, 372 ITR 694 –Delhi). Therefore, this issue is partly allowed. 3. On the next issue, the Ld.AR submitted that out of the total freight collected by the assessee at Rs.30.53 crores, the assessee paid freight to shipping companies at Rs.25.56 crores and hence it had correctly admitted the balance sum of Rs.4.96 crores as gross income in its P&L account, which…

Doha Bank, India Branches, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 3684/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodit(Tp)A Nos.3684 & 3685/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari &
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C

…the amount of the disallowance under Sec. 14A is liable to be restricted to the extent of the exempt interest income. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of JCIT Vs. Joint Investments Pvt.ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) and Cheminvest Ld. Vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del). Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, the A.O is directed to restrict the disallowance under Sec.14A to the extent of the amount of the exempt income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Before parting, we may herein observe that the concession on the part of the asses…

DCIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I), Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…the same was restricted by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of exempt dividend income actually earned by the assessee during the year under consideration by following, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Limited –vs.- CIT (372 ITR 694). It is noted that the aforementioned judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Patrex Vyapar Limited Vs ITO (supra) wherein this Tribunal restricted the disallowance of Rs.8,81,839/- made by AO u/s 14 read with Rule 8D to Rs.72,000/- i.e., the dividend actually earned during the year. Hence, we do…

M/S.Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2004/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 14ASection 154

…14A of the I.T.Act cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee for the relevant assessment years. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 694 (Del.). The contentions of the assessee that disallowance u/s 14A of the 3 ITA Nos.2001-2004/Bang/2016 M/s.Brindavan Beverages Pvt.Ltd. I.T.Act is to be restricted to exempt income earned was noted by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate orders. 7.1 The learned AR submitted that the assessee was in receipt of exempt income of RS.43,969 and Rs.91…

M/S.Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2001/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 14ASection 154

…14A of the I.T.Act cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee for the relevant assessment years. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 694 (Del.). The contentions of the assessee that disallowance u/s 14A of the 3 ITA Nos.2001-2004/Bang/2016 M/s.Brindavan Beverages Pvt.Ltd. I.T.Act is to be restricted to exempt income earned was noted by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate orders. 7.1 The learned AR submitted that the assessee was in receipt of exempt income of RS.43,969 and Rs.91…

Shri Vinay Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2274/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Vinay Bhasin, Vs Acit, C-14, South Extension, Part-Ii, Circle-63(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapb3445J Assessee By : Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Parikshist Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Parikshist Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14A

…d that there is no proper record of satisfaction as to the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income. By following the decision reported in CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 275 CTR (Del.) 316 and Joint Investments (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.), we are of the opinion that the AO at the first instance should have examined the correctness of the statement made by the assessee that no expenses were incurred for earning the exempt income during the year and if and only if the Ld. AO is not satisfied on this account after making reference to the accounts, he is entitled to adopt the m…

M/S. Coffeeday Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bagalore

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

ITA 459/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Coffeeday Enterprises Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, Central Circle-1(3), Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001. Pan – Aadcc 3995 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: S. Sundar rao CIT
Section 14A

…by another coordinate bench in the case of M/s Way2Wealth Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1679/Bang/2017) dated 1/6/2018, wherein the said coordinate bench has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd., 372 ITR 694 and Holecim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282. The ld AR submitted that the disallowance voluntarily made by the assessee u/s 14A of the Act is more than the amount of dividend and hence no further disallowance is called for, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that identical issue has been considered by the co-ordinate bench in t…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1380/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36Section 43(5)(d)Section 80I

…ome of ₹ 15,96,000/- only. legal position to this effect is well supported from decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2018] 259 Taxman 314 (SC) and Delhi High Court in case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del). relevant head note in case of Pr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2018] 259 Taxman 314 (SC) is as under: “Section 14A, read with section 263, of Income-tax The Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (Computation of) - Assessment year 2010-11 - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer made addi…