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

Shriram Industrial Finance (Firm), Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2007/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2007/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mrs. Vijaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: 24.02.2020
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी एम बाला गणेश, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2007/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Shriram Industrial Finance (Firm), The Dy. Commissioner of Mookambika Complex, Vs. Income Tax, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Chennai – 600 004. Chennai. [PAN: AACFS 1682A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Srinivasan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellan…

ITO, Ward- 20(2), New Delhi vs. Pushpanjali Fincon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4305/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Nipun Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satish Kumar Gupta, Senior DR
Section 14A

…ings returned by 4 ITA No.4305/Del./2017 the ld. CIT (A) as it is settled principle of law that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.) held that, “the disallowance more than exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under assessment cannot be made.” Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 20th day of February, 2020. sd/- (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated the 20th day of February, 2019 TS…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD) Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Kurlon Limited, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1160/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Kurlon Ltd., Income Tax (Osd), No. 301-303, North Block, Iii Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Vs. Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, Bmtc Depot, 6Th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 042. Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aabck 2150 K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Shri. C. Ramesh, Ca Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-4, Bengaluru, Dated 25.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Ground No.1 Is General. As Per Revised Grounds 2 To 5, The Grievance Of The Revenue Is Regarding Part Deletion Of The Disallowance Made By The Ao Under Section 14A R.W.R. 8D(Ii). In This Regard, Learned Dr Of The Revenue Supported The Assessment Order. He Submitted That This Issue Was Decided By Learned Cit(A) As Per Para 5.4 Of His Order & The Disallowance Was Deleted Page 2 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

…. DCIT in ITA No.713-715/Bang/2018 dated 08.05.2019, copy available on pages 1-12 of the Paper Book and pointed out that in this case, the Tribunal has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 694 wherein it was held that the disallowance under section 14A of IT Act, 1961 cannot exceed the exempt income and pointed out that in para 4 of this Tribunal order, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. He also submitted that learned CIT(A) has upheld the d…

Omprakash Basantal Goenka, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 943/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh. Mr. Omprakash Basantlal Goenka, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 101, 10Th Floor, Somerset House, Income-Tax, Central Circle- Sofia College Lane, Warden Road, 2(4), Mumbai. Mumbai-400026, Pan No. : Aaecpg3845J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (D.R) Date Of Hearing 23-01-2020 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2020 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, J.M.

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…wed the expenses to earn the exempt income in a sum of Rs.1,47,11,057/ which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The disallowance u/s 14A should not be more than the exempt income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 has held that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D should only be to the extent of tax exempt income. We further note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Del.) there can be no disallowance u/s 14A r.w. r 8D in absence of exempt income. The concept behind this judgement is that the amount of…

DCIT - Circle -11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tops Securities Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3445/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The D.C.I.T, Circle – 11(3)(1), M/S Tops Security Ltd., Room No. 204, Aayakar Bhavan, 5, Royal Palm Golf Country Club, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Marg, Survey # 169, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Aarey Milk Colony , Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400065 Pan: Aaact0160F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 136/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3445/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Topsgrup Service (I) Ltd., The D.C.I.T, Circle – 11(3)(1), (Formerly Known As Tops Security 2Nd Floor, Room No. 204, Ltd.), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 5, Royal Palm Golf Country Club, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Survey 169, Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400065 Pan: Aaact0160F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The D.C.I.T, Circle – 11(3)(1), M/S Tops Security Ltd., Room No. 204, Aayakar Bhavan, 5, Royal Palm Golf Country Club, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Marg, Survey 169, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400065 Pan: Aaact0160F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 14A

…Ld. counsel without prejudice submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D (2) cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Delhi). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the revenue and the Ld. counsel for the assessee. We notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has justified the suo moto disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/-made by the assessee inter alia on the ground that if strategic investments are excluded dis…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1163/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Smair Tekriwala CIT
Section 14ASection 234A

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

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Svl Ltd., Chennai

ITA 3218/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Gautam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shr. Abani Kanta Nayam, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…tion 14A of the Act. However, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the amount of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd vs. CIT, 372 ITR 694. The ld. CIT(A) also directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act for the purpose of computing tax liability under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us in ITA 4. no.3167/CHNY/2018 challenging that in the absence of recording a finding by the Assessing Offi…

Svl Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward 6(3), Chennai

ITA 3167/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Gautam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shr. Abani Kanta Nayam, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…tion 14A of the Act. However, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the amount of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd vs. CIT, 372 ITR 694. The ld. CIT(A) also directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act for the purpose of computing tax liability under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us in ITA 4. no.3167/CHNY/2018 challenging that in the absence of recording a finding by the Assessing Offi…

Logix Microsystems Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 186/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.453/Bang/2015 & It(Tp)A No.186/Bang/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…is Rs.9,64,943 and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and appropriate to hold that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 372 ITR 694 has taken the view that IT(TP)A No.453/B/2015 & IT(TP)A No.186/B/2016 Page 19 of 28 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…

Logix Microsystems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 453/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.453/Bang/2015 & It(Tp)A No.186/Bang/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…is Rs.9,64,943 and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and appropriate to hold that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 372 ITR 694 has taken the view that IT(TP)A No.453/B/2015 & IT(TP)A No.186/B/2016 Page 19 of 28 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Baba Global Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 6340/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sachin Dhania, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…e disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income, we are in agreement with this contention. This view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del). Accordingly we direct the AO to restrict the addition to the exempt income. Accordingly this ground is partly allowed in favour of the assessee.” 11. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the aforementioned findings of the co-ordinate bench and restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income. Therefore, no interference is c…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Modland Wears Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Ground Nos

ITA 3587/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ok and submitted that during the year the assessee has shown exempted income from dividends of ₹ 10, 35, 890 under section 10(34) of the Act .He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint investment Private Limited reported in 372 ITR 694 (Del) and submitted that disallowance of expenses under section 14A should be limited to the exempted income only. 12. We have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the assessee has disputed the disallowance of ₹ 7.04 lakhs sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for the administrative expenses un…

M/S Chl Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2814/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Satish Khosla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…th Rule 8D of the Rules is concerned, in the assessment order, learned Assessing Officer noted that the dividend income was Rs.91,154/-. Ld. AR submitted that in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Joint Investments P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694, disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the amount of tax-exempt income. In view of this binding precedent of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we find that the disallowance shall not exceed Rs.91,154/-. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 91,154/-. Ground No. 1 of the appeal…

Tikuchand Durgaji Jogani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 17 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-

ITA 6798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Tikuchand Durgaji Jogani, The Acit-17(3), 301, Gundecha Chambers, Room No. 137, N.M. Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai - 400023 Vs. Road, Pan: Aaapj8019Q Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J. Patil (AR)For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh (DR)
Section 143Section 14ASection 234ASection 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Tikuchand Durgaji Jogani, The ACIT-17(3), 301, Gundecha Chambers, Room No. 137, N.M. Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai - 400023 Vs. Road, PAN: AAAPJ8019Q Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Tikuchand Durgaji Jogani, The ITO-17(3) 4, 301, Gundecha Chambers, Room No. 135A, N.M. Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400023 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAAPJ8019Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ashok J. Patil (AR…

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…has not specifically pointing out how and on which material , the findings of the DRP are wrong etc , the corresponding grounds of the assessee are dismissed. However, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 694) , we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…has not specifically pointing out how and on which material , the findings of the DRP are wrong etc , the corresponding grounds of the assessee are dismissed. However, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 694) , we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Limited, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…has not specifically pointing out how and on which material , the findings of the DRP are wrong etc , the corresponding grounds of the assessee are dismissed. However, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 694) , we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…has not specifically pointing out how and on which material , the findings of the DRP are wrong etc , the corresponding grounds of the assessee are dismissed. However, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 694) , we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year…

Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore vs. Addl.CIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1387/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. M/S.Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., The Addl.Cit, Perianaickenpalayam, Corporate Range, S.R.K.V. Post, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 020. [Pan: Aaacl 5244 N ] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent) : Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, Cit ,-यथ+ क. ओर से /Respondent By : 07.11.2019 सुनवाई क. तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2020 घोषणा क. तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Appellant: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: 07.11.2019
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(2)

…eration and then made disallowance u/s 14A of the 1961 Act by including such investments which yielded dividend during the year under consideration . Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2015) 372 ITR 694(Del) has held that disallowance of expenses u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The AO is directed to follow the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Delhi :- 7 -: High Court. Reference is also drawn to decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Limited v. Addl. CIT reported in (2017) 392 ITR 633(Mad.) and decision of Ho…

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5601/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…nly Rs.1,97,449/- as dividend income, therefore, impugned addition is unjustified and disallowance should restricted to the dividend income of Rs.1,97,499/- and relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del.) (HC). 18 ITA.Nos.3080/D/2017, 5408 & 5601/D/2018 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi 22. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 23. Considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the issue is same as have been considered in A.Y. 2012-2013. Following the reasons for decision for the sa…