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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S 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 5872/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…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Adani Wilmair Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the CO. of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1761/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1761/Ahd/2016 With C.O. No.133/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Adani Wilmar Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. “Fortune House”, Ahmedabad. Near Adani House Mithakali Cross Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Pan: Aabca8056G

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 41(1)

…elation to such income” implies that the expenditure cannot exceed the amount of exempted income. 7.2 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 versus 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 proportio…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1467/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 134ASection 14A

…the assesese contended that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Limited –vs.- 7 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited CIT reported in 372 ITR 694, wherein it was held that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. He submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Patrex Vyapar Limited –vs.- ITO (ITA No. 1921/Kol./2017 dated 02.01.2019) has followed the said decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the…

Sri Alok Agrawal, Sundergarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 160/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

….14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard your honour's kind attention is drawn towards the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd (101 taxmann, com 167) and Joint Investments (P) Ltd v. CIT (372 ITR 694) wherein it was held that the amount of disallowance can not exceed the exempt income earned during the year. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of PCIT v. State Bank ofPatiala (2018) 259 Taxman 315 (P& H) (HC), The SLP of Income Tax Department against the order has already been dismissed by the Apex Cour…

Sri Alok Agarwal, Sundergarh vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 319/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

….14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard your honour's kind attention is drawn towards the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd (101 taxmann, com 167) and Joint Investments (P) Ltd v. CIT (372 ITR 694) wherein it was held that the amount of disallowance can not exceed the exempt income earned during the year. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of PCIT v. State Bank ofPatiala (2018) 259 Taxman 315 (P& H) (HC), The SLP of Income Tax Department against the order has already been dismissed by the Apex Cour…

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

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

ITA 3210/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathait(Tp)A No.3210/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Doha Bank Qsc, India Vs. Dcit(International Branches (Successors To Transaction)-2(2)(2) 17Th Hsbc Bank Oman S.A.O.G., Floor, Air India India Branches) Building, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Sakhar Bhavan, Ground Floor, Plot No-230 Block No Iii, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aafcd3506L Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 14A

…allow entire exempt income of the assessee. In other words, the disallowances computed u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income earned for the year under consideration as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High court, in the case of JCIT vs Joint Investments Pvt.Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 694 and Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT (378 ITR 33 (Del). Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and by following the case laws discussed herein above, we direct the Ld. AO to restrict disallowances of expenditure computed u/s 14A of the Act, to the extent of exempt income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 11. In the…

S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P.Tld, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is also partly allowed

ITA 79/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumars. Vinodkumar Diamonds, Dcit – 5(3), बनाम/ Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Vs. Off No. Bw 3010, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics514N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, SeniorFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, Sr-DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S. Vinodkumar Diamonds, DCIT – 5(3), बनाम/ Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Vs. Off No. BW 3010, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAICS514N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Sh. Madhur Aggarwal Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Uodol Raj Singh, Sr-DR 30/07/2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 03/08 /20…

Kundan Rice Mills Limited, Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat Circle, Panipat

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 853/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Uditi Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hand relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that assessee has received dividend income of Rs.1,80,717/- only. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd., 372 ITR 694 (Del.) held that “the disallowance under section 14A cannot be more 5 ITA.No.853/Del./2020 M/s. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Panipat. than to that of the exempt income.” Since in the present case the dividend income earned by assessee is of Rs.1,80,717/- which is claimed exempt under section 10(34) of the I.T. Act, therefore, disallowance under secti…

M/S. Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and stay petition is dismissed

ITA 284/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14A

…ntum of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempt income. In support of this proposition, the Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and also the decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.7.2017). ITA No.284/Bang/2020 & S.P. No.113/Bang/2020 M/s. Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 9 of 11 11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered an identical issue in the c…

Ardor in-Fin Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1121/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ardor-In-Fin P Ltd Ito, Ward-7(3) Ardor House, Vs Ahmedabad. Mondeal Business Park B/S.Gurudwara Thalej, S.G. Road Ahmedabad 380 059. Pan : Aagca 2925 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Talsania Revenue By : Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ankit TalsaniaFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 14A

….) Ltd (2014) 45 taxmann.com. 116 (Guj) and Pr.CIT vs. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com 356 (Guj). The aforesaid judicial fiat was reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 692 (Delhi) wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has categorically ruled that disallowance under s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the amount of tax exempt income. Notably, the SLP filed against the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Chettinad Logistics (supra) has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. (2018)…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

M/S Aspinwall & Co., Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

ITO, Ward-16(4), New Delhi vs. Mnr Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 210/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Mnr Projects Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), 208, Golf Links, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aafcm2428L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 24

…of his predecessor for assessment year 2011 – 12 directed the learned AO to restrict the disallowance to the extent of the exempt income earned in view of the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of JOINT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS CIT (372 ITR 694). He further directed the learned assessing officer to recompute the disallowance to exclude the interest expenditure, which pertains to the income from house property and in respect of the interest expenditure related to the income from other sources. He was directed to consider the remaining interest expenditure for the purpose of computation o…

Patel Corporation LLP., Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3417/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Patel Corporation Office Of Ito – 31(2)(5), Llp, C-13, 1St Floor Sv Road, R. No.106, Vs. Patel Estate, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Jogeshwari (W), Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 102 Mumbai - 21 Pan: Aamfp3196J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito – 31(2)(5), M/S. Patel Corporation C-13, 1St Floor Llp, R. No.106, Sv Road, Vs. Bkc Bandra (East), Patel Estate, Mumbai - 400051 Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400 102 Pan: Aamfp3196J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the amount of exempt income received by the assessee during the year by following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694, CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 90 CCH (0081) Delhi – HC and also the decision of P&H HC in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of India, Patiala 393 ITR 476 P&H and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 104-109 of 2015 dated 12/02/2018. 5. After hearing both the parties and…

M/S. Jagdale Industries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1622/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…s only to the effect that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the extent of dividend income earned by the Assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 372 ITR 694 wherein a view was taken that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282 (Del). These decisions were considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd v. ACIT, ITA N…

M/S Global Tech Park Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result ITA No.2287/BANG/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 2287/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Smt R. Premi, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 14A

…rm of dividend of Rs.1,51,694/-. The disallowance u/s.14A of the Act computed by the revenue authorities was a sum of Rs.2,83,23,833/-. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITA Nos. 2286 & 2287/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 11 Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 372 ITR 694 has taken the view that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282 (Del). These decisions were considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd v. ACIT, ITA No.4658…

M/S Global Tech Park Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result ITA No.2287/BANG/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 2286/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Smt R. Premi, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 14A

…rm of dividend of Rs.1,51,694/-. The disallowance u/s.14A of the Act computed by the revenue authorities was a sum of Rs.2,83,23,833/-. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITA Nos. 2286 & 2287/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 11 Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 372 ITR 694 has taken the view that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282 (Del). These decisions were considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd v. ACIT, ITA No.4658…

ITO - 6(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5719/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…f the assessee. The disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the tax exempt income itself. It has been so held by a series of orders by various Hon’ble High Courts, including Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt Ltd vs CIT [(2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del)]. Similarly, as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power Limited [ (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom)], if there are funds available both, interest-free and overdraft and/or loans are taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest-free fund generated or available with the…