How many judgments cite Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

803 judgments on BharatTax cite Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (372 ITR 694), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 8D, Section 115JB, Section 143(2).

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 14A Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 8D Section 115JB Section 143(2)Section 10AA Section 10B

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 14a section 37 section 10 salary previous year section 80 section 14 company india transfer

Judgments citing Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Metal Coatings (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 923/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Metal Coatings (India) Vs. Dcit, Ltd., Circle-16(2), C.R. Building, 912, Hemkunt Chambers, New Delhi 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacm2115M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Metal Coatings (India) Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-16(2), C.R. Building, 912, Hemkunt Chambers, New Delhi 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACM2115M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashok Khandewal, CA Respondent by Shri K. Hauthang, Sr.DR Date of hearing 26.09.2019 Date of pronouncement 16.10.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 10/01/2016 passed by the learned Commissioner of…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 326/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No:- 326/Del/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Chl Ltd., Hotel The Suryaa, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025. …...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacc2587M Vs Dcit, …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. L.N.Malik, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…that the disallowance if any, u/s 14A of the Act could not exceed the exempt income which was Rs.2,61,000/- during the year. In this regard, he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment P.Ltd. vs CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.). 4. The Ld. DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. ITA No:326/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused material available on record. The first issue raised in the present appeal is against the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. As against the dividend income o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for assessment years 2009-10 is dismissed whereas appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Circle-11(1), Services Ltd., New Delhi 806, Sidharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaach3130M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…,05,200/- made by the assessee, he made addition of Rs.23,44,799/- in terms of section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. The learned CIT(A) deleted the additions in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Joint Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, (2015), 372 ITR 694 that disallowance cannot be more than exempt income. 4.1 We have heard both the parties on the issue in dispute. As the learned CIT(A) has followed the binding precedent of the Jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any error in the order of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly upheld the same. Ground no. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. 5. In grou…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for assessment years 2009-10 is dismissed whereas appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4807/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Shriraminsight Share Brokers Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2975/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2975/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Lady Vs. Income Tax, Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci2727H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Gautham Venketanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai Dated 31.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Part Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D, Disallowance Of Depreciation In Respect Of Royalty, Disallowance Of Bad Debt & Part

For Appellant: Shri S. Gautham VenketanarayananFor Respondent: Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT

Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2975/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Lady Vs. Income Tax, Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [PAN: AAACI2727H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Gautham Venketana…

DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai vs. Anand Rathi Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2766/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Dcit, Cc 5(1) Vs. M/S. Anand Rathi Capital R.No.1928, 19Th Floor Advisors Pvt. Ltd., 47A, 3Rd Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point Plot No.308, Mumbai – 400 021 Hanuman Building, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr2791N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.181/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2766/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Anand Rathi Vs. Dcit, Cc 5(1) R.No.1928, 19Th Floor Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 47A, 3Rd Floor, Nariman Point Plot No.308, Mumbai – 400 021 Hanuman Building, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr2791N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM DCIT, CC 5(1) Vs. M/s. Anand Rathi Capital R.No.1928, 19th Floor Advisors Pvt. Ltd., 47A, 3rd Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point Plot No.308, Mumbai – 400 021 Hanuman Building, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACR2791N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.181/Mum/2019 (Arising Out of ITA No.2766/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year :2012-13) M/s. Anand Rathi Vs. DCIT, CC 5(1) R.No.1928, 19th Floor Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 47A, 3rd Floor, Nariman Point Plot No.308,…

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adroit Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar

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

ITA 2289/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia &For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2014-15 The ITO, M/s. Adroit Tradelink Ward-1(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd, 145-1, Ahmedabad Vs Sector-14, Samrajya (Appellant) Apartment, Gandhinagar PAN: AAACJ3868J (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Mehul Talera, A.Rs. Date of hearing : 12-07-2019 Date of pronouncement : 01-10-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from order of the CIT(…

ACIT Cir 7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Essel Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6050/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanacit, Circle-7(3)(1) M/S Essel Infraprojects Ltd. Room No. 142, G, 135, Continental Building , 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 4000018 Mumbai – 400020 Pan – Aaacp6095M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manjunatha Swamy, D.RFor Respondent: None

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

…(A) that a disallowance under Sec. 14A cannot exceed the amount of the exempt income. In fact, we find that the view taken by the CIT(A) is supported by the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that the disallowance envisaged in Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of the exempt income. The Hon‟ble High Court in the said case, had observed as under : “By no stretch of imagination can Sec. 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exem…

Masitia Capital Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 10 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3442/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

…e disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year. In support of such contention he relied upon the following decisions:– i) PCIT v/s State Bank of Patiala, 393 ITR 476 (P&H); ii) Joint Investment v/s CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Del.); and iii) Indus Valley Investments v/s DCIT, ITA no.3763/Del./2013, dated 29.04.2019. 11. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 12. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, in the year under consid…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 3(2), Cent. Range - 3, Mumbai vs. Nitin Fire Protection Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 186/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmi Kant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 36(1)(iii)

…d accordingly upheld the working of disallowance made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act at Rs. 33,97,774/-. After considering the entire facts of the present case, we find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vrs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) had held that section 14A or rule 8D of the I.T. Rules 1962, cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the entire exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance was indicated in section 14A and was only to the extent of disallowing expenditure ‘incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income’. This proposition o…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 3(2), Cent. Range - 3, Mumbai vs. Nitin Fire Protection Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 185/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmi Kant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 36(1)(iii)

The Dy. CIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. M/S. Anupam Industries Ltd., Anand

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1504/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.R

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 ITA No. 1504/Ahd/18 [M/s. Anupam Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 3 - Logistics (supra) has been di…

Rakeshkumar Wadhawan, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2681/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Rakeshkumar Wadhawan Vs. Acit, Central Circle 5(4) Wadhawan House, Union Park Mumbai Road, 5, Shatranj Hotel Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Pan/Gir No. Aaepw7656G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(a)

…isallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2) of the Rules cannot exceed the exempt income claimed by the assessee. 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 (Del). We find that the total exempt income claimed by assessee is Rs 31,58,096/- ( 13,585+31,44,511). Hence we direct the ld AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to Rs 31,58,096/- . Accordingly, the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 5. The next ground to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA wa…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 781/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…carefully considered the rival contentions. In this case assessee himself has disallowed Rs.3311708/- which itself is far more in excess of exempt income. Hon'ble Delhi high court in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 295/233 Taxman 117/372 ITR 694 has held that:— "9. In the present case, the AO has not firstly disclosed why the appellant/assessee's claim for attributing Rs. 2,97,440 as a disallowance under s. 14A had to be rejected. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd. (supra) says that the jurisdiction to proceed further and determine amounts is derived after examination of the accounts and rejectio…

M/S. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 1782/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

M/S Minda Investment Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 510/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shrik.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ment Year 2013- 14, which is far less than the interest free funds available with the assessee. 9. Per contra, it is submitted by the Ld. DR that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd., (2015) 372 ITR 694, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to the quantum of dividend earned is quite justifiable and according to law. He placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 10. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. From the information furnished in the paper book at pag…

Huntsman International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 520/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Pal Singh DaiaFor Respondent: Shri Farrokh Irani

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…rly well settled that the disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income earned during the year. In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del.), Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.), DCIT v/s PHL Finivest Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.2318/Mum./ 2017, dated 31st August 2018, and Sanghavi Exports International Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.3405/Mum./2015, dated 10th July 2017. Thus, applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the disallowance under section 1…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M Suresh Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4636/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Manish Singh

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…Section 14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the Rules has to be restricted to the exempt income earned during the year. We find substantial force in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, [2015] 372 ITR 694/233 Taxman 117/59 taxmann.com 295 has held that disallowance under Section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year. The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Pr. CIT v. State Bank of India, [2017] 393 ITR 476/88 taxmann.com 667 (Punj. & Har.). In view of the legal principle laid d…

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. K. Girdharilal International Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4036/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4036 To 4038 /Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. K. Girdharlal International Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 5(2)(1) Vs. 1011 Prasad Chambers, Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, Opera House, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400004. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacck6101F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Veena Purohit (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. Ita. No.4036/M/2018:- 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10

For Appellant: Ms. Veena Purohit (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

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

…that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The plea of the appellant finds supports from various judicial pronouncements. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, vide the judgment dated 25.02.2015, in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694, has held that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income and further in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd (2014) 90 CCH 0081 — Del-HC, it has been held that there can be no disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of any exempt income. In CIT v. ITA. Nos.4036 to 4038/M/2018 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 State Bank…

DCIT-5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Su-Raj Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3982/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3982/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-5(3)(2) M/S Winsome Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd. Room No.573, 5Th Floor [Formerly Known As Su-Raj Diamond & Jewellery Ltd.] बनाम/ 906-908, The Plaza, 55 Gamdevi Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Near Dharm Palace M.K. Road Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-5516-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-10 Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-10, Mumbai/11101/2016-17 Dated 23/03/2018 Qua Deletion Of Disallowance U/S 14A.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during year under consideration and therefore, no disallowance u/s 14A would be justified. While doing so, reliance was placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT [372 ITR 694], CIT V/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. [90 CCH 81] & the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT V/s State Bank of Patiala [393 ITR 476] as confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch of appeals titled as Maxopp 3 M/s. Winsome Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd. Assessment Year :2014-15 Investments Ltd. V/s CIT dated 12/02/2018. Aggrieved the ass…