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

ITO 2 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Centrum Capital Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objection

ITA 497/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Ito – 2(1)(3) Centrum Capital Limited Room Ni. 553, 5Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mutual Building, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Lalit Dehiya
Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITO – 2(1)(3) Centrum Capital Limited Room Ni. 553, 5th Floor, 2nd Floor, Bombay Mutual Building, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACC 5099 G (Revenue) : (Assessee) and CO No. 12/Mum/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 497/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Centrum Capital Limited ITO – 2(1)(3) 2nd Floor, Bombay Mutual Building, Room Ni. 553, 5th Floor, Vs. Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/G…

Jindal Stainless Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for

ITA 6518/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd Vs. Dy. C.I.T O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar Circle – 13(2) Haryana New Delhi PAN: AABCJ 1969 M [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd Circle – 13(2) O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar New Delhi Haryana PAN: AABCJ 1969 M [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hear…

Jindal Stainless Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for

ITA 6517/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd Vs. Dy. C.I.T O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar Circle – 13(2) Haryana New Delhi PAN: AABCJ 1969 M [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd Circle – 13(2) O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar New Delhi Haryana PAN: AABCJ 1969 M [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hear…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jindal Stainless Ltd., Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for

ITA 5095/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd Vs. Dy. C.I.T O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar Circle – 13(2) Haryana New Delhi PAN: AABCJ 1969 M [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd Circle – 13(2) O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar New Delhi Haryana PAN: AABCJ 1969 M [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hear…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jindal Stainless Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for

ITA 6539/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd Vs. Dy. C.I.T O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar Circle – 13(2) Haryana New Delhi PAN: AABCJ 1969 M [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd Circle – 13(2) O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar New Delhi Haryana PAN: AABCJ 1969 M [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hear…

Mirah Hospitality & Food Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 4693/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: The Itat In These Cases Against A Common Order Of Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dated 28.5.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of “Hotels & Resorts”, Filed The Return Of Income For The Ay 2009-2010 Declaring The Total Loss Of Rs.43,15,534/- After Set Off Of Ltcg Of Rs. 1,31,36,082/-. Assessee Is A Group Concern Of M/S. Twinkle Group. There Was A Search & Seizure Action On The Said M/S. Twinkle Group U/S 132 Of The Act. Accordingly, In Response To The Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring The Same Total Loss (Rs. (-) 43,15,334/-). Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Determining The Total Loss Of Rs. 3,82,977/- Which Include Certain Disallowances & Rs. 27,68,422/- Is One

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…and non-interest bearing funds exceed investments 1. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 2. 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT 3. 410 ITR 466 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited II Disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income 1. 372 ITR 694 (Del.) Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 2. 286 CTR 457 (P&H) Pr. CIT v. Empire Package Pvt. Ltd 3. 96 CCH 87 (Madras) Tecpro Systems Ltd. v. UOI 4. 102 taxmann.com 438(Mum. - Trib.) ACIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 5. 46 ITR(Trib) 70 (Mum. - Trib.) Daga Global Chemicals Ltd. v. ACIT 6. 181 TTJ 600 (Mum. - Trib.) Tata Industries Ltd v. ITO…

M/S. Kingfisher Finvest India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2642/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 14A

…essee submitted that the expenses relating to exempt income was only Rs.35.61 lakhs. In the alternative, the assessee contended before Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Limited 372 ITR 694 that the disallowance should not exceed the exempt income. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the alternative contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, directed the A.O. to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. Aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), both the parties are i…

M/S. Kingfisher Finvest India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2641/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 14A

…essee submitted that the expenses relating to exempt income was only Rs.35.61 lakhs. In the alternative, the assessee contended before Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Limited 372 ITR 694 that the disallowance should not exceed the exempt income. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the alternative contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, directed the A.O. to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. Aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), both the parties are i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Kingfisher Finvest India Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2477/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 14A

…essee submitted that the expenses relating to exempt income was only Rs.35.61 lakhs. In the alternative, the assessee contended before Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Limited 372 ITR 694 that the disallowance should not exceed the exempt income. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the alternative contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, directed the A.O. to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. Aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), both the parties are i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2232/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), S-7, 2Nd Floor, Esteem Arcade, No.26, Bengaluru. Vs. Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacd 7081 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Harinder Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ated 24.01.2019. The appellant without prejudice to the above has submitted that disallowance made should not exceed the exempt income having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 694 wherein it was held that only the proportion of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to tax exempt income can he disallowed and this proportion cannot swallow the entire tax exempt income. The same ratio has also been followed by the Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT in the case of Tranquil Realty Private Limited wherein it was held that: ....th…

Dharampal Premchand Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 4460/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. GN Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

…by the learned Assessing Officer. 13. Ld. CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee by limiting the disallowance to the exempt income in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case ofJoint Investments P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694. However, further grievance of the assessee is that for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, such an amount should have been computed only qua the investment which yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court i…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Electricity Financing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 801/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 115JSection 14ASection 154

…by the assessee from the investments made, provisions of section 14A of the Act would not come into operation at all. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694. Similar views were taken by various High Courts in the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 221 (Madras HC). 2. CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 486/2014 (Delhi HC) 3. Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC) 4. CIT Vs. Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970/2008, dated 02/04/2014 ( P&H HC).…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Electricity Financing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 800/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 115JSection 14ASection 154

…by the assessee from the investments made, provisions of section 14A of the Act would not come into operation at all. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694. Similar views were taken by various High Courts in the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 221 (Madras HC). 2. CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 486/2014 (Delhi HC) 3. Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC) 4. CIT Vs. Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970/2008, dated 02/04/2014 ( P&H HC).…

M/S Indus-League Clothing Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 210/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Indus League Clothing Limited, No.03, Puttappa Indl. Estate, Whitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore-560 048 ….Appellant Pan Aaaci 5392Q Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri L. Bharath, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…d submitted that the quantum of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempted income. In support of this proposition, he relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) and in paras 7 to 9 held as under : “ 7. During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax VI v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., (ITA 115/2014, decided on 25.11.2014). The court had, in that judgment, highlighted the necessity in view of the peculiar wording o…

Vinay Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6904/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)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 (Dei.), 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…

Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela vs. DCIT, Rorukela Circle, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 393/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

…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 the claim of the assessee, in respect of such expenditure in relation to exempt income, which d…

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 389/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

…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 the claim of the assessee, in respect of such expenditure in relation to exempt income, which d…

ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2364/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

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

…ance out of the interest expenditure incurred for investment in Mutual funds. 13 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 3.13 We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Company Private Limited Vs. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del.) has restricted the disallowance under section 14A to the extent of the exempted income. Following the finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Stock Investment Ltd. (supra), The Ld CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the case of the assessee to the extent of excepted income. In the facts and cir…

Religare Finvest Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.Ciy, Range-21, New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1947/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

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

…ance out of the interest expenditure incurred for investment in Mutual funds. 13 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 3.13 We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Company Private Limited Vs. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del.) has restricted the disallowance under section 14A to the extent of the exempted income. Following the finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Stock Investment Ltd. (supra), The Ld CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the case of the assessee to the extent of excepted income. In the facts and cir…

M/S Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6474/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

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

…ance out of the interest expenditure incurred for investment in Mutual funds. 13 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 3.13 We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Company Private Limited Vs. CIT: 372 ITR 694 (Del.) has restricted the disallowance under section 14A to the extent of the exempted income. Following the finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Stock Investment Ltd. (supra), The Ld CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the case of the assessee to the extent of excepted income. In the facts and cir…