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.

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 694)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gcil Finance Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3092/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. R.C JainFor Respondent: Shri. Ajai Pratap Singh (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s Private Limited reported in (2017) 299 CTR 457(SC) and still Hon’ble High Court has to decide the issue on merits in accordance with law. Further, as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2015) 372 ITR 694(Del.) , the disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income. Further as laid down by Hon’ble ITAT ,Special Bench , Delhi in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investment Private Limited I.T.A. No. 3092/Mum/2016 I.T.A. No.7061/Mum/2017 reported in (2017) 165 ITD 27(Delhi-Trib.(SB) , only those investments are to be considered for making di…

A.C.I.T (Ods) - 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Value Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Payone Enterprises Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 1126/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Reliance Value Services Income Tax (Osd)- 1(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 541, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Payone Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Enterprises Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Maneklal Mahal, 6Th Floor, 90, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aafca4453K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Deepak M. Jain (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2019

For Appellant: Shri Deepak M. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar (DR)

Section 143Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Reliance Value Services Income Tax (OSD)- 1(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 541, 5th Floor, (Formerly Known as Payone Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Enterprises Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Maneklal Mahal, 6th Floor, 90, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAFCA4453K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar (DR) Assessee by : Shri Deepak M. Jain (AR) Date of Hearing: 03/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 07/08/2019 O R D E R PER…

DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Payone Enterprises (P) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3682/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Payone Enterprises (P) Income Tax – 1(3)(1) Ltd., Room No.540, 5Th Floor 6Th Floor, Manek Mashal, Aayakar Bhavan 90, Veer Nariman Road M.K.Road Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aafca4453K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the disallowance figure of Rs.1,21,84,586/- after reducing the amount disallowed already by the assessee in the sum of Rs.49,452/-. The ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments reported in 372 ITR 694 restricted the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act to the extent of dividend income. The ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. AO to disallow only the remaining sum of Rs.31,920/- (Rs.81,372 – Rs.49,452/-) u/s.14A of the Act. We find no infirmity in the said order of the ld. CIT(A) as the same has been rendered by following the decision of the Hon’ble Del…

Buhler (India) Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 95/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2011-12 M/S. Buhler India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 13-D, 12-D, 13C & 13-B, Income-Tax, Kiadb Indl. Area, Attibele, Circle 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 562 107. Bangalore. Pan : Aaacb 5987 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d AR, the alternate argument of the assessee Page 5 of 8 is that disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. In this regard, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT (372 ITR 694) has taken the view that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., (272 CTR 282) (Del HC). These decisions were considered and followed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Lt…

Medall Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2383/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh-

Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2383/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. M/s.Medall Health Care Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- No.67, 2nd Floor, TNPL Building, of Income Tax, Mount Road, Guindy, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai-32. Chennai. [PAN: AABCP 9015 E] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent) : Mr.T.Vasudevan, Adv. अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Dhfl Holding Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 985/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.985/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Dhfl Holding Pvt. Tax (Osd)-14(1)(2) Ltd. Vs. Room No.475, 4Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Hdil Tower, A.K. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashi Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Karve Road, Mumbai- 400051. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcd6857C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri H.N. Singh Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Mohan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Was The Cit(A) Right In Upholding The Decision Of The Assessing Officer In Partly Confirming The Decision Of The Ao; That Is Contrary To The A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh

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

…s courts. 6.3 The appellant has contended that disallowance u/s 14A has to be restricted to the extent of exempt income claimed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi)(HC) in support of this proposition. Further reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. in TA No. 5592/Mum/2012 wherein it has been held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income. In view of these judgements, the disallowan…

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4923/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 115JSection 14A

…. Different High Courts have held that disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee in a particular assessment year. In this context, we may refer to the following decisions:– i) Joint Investments v/s CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Del.); and ii) PCIT v/s State Bank of Patiala, 393 ITR 476 (P&H). 10. In fact, in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010–11, the Tribunal, while deciding identical issue in ITA no.1654/Mum./2016, dated 1st February 2019 has held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act has to be restricted to the exempt income earned during the year.…

ACIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.Venkatesh, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 10ASection 14ASection 153A

…the disallowance to the quantum of the exempt income received, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), wherein, it has been held that the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. In these circumstances, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, referred to supra, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) st…

ACIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 272/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.Venkatesh, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 10ASection 14ASection 153A

…the disallowance to the quantum of the exempt income received, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), wherein, it has been held that the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. In these circumstances, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, referred to supra, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) st…

ACIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 271/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.Venkatesh, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 10ASection 14ASection 153A

…the disallowance to the quantum of the exempt income received, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), wherein, it has been held that the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. In these circumstances, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, referred to supra, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) st…

ACIT Central Circle I(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3191/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.Venkatesh, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 10ASection 14ASection 153A

…the disallowance to the quantum of the exempt income received, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), wherein, it has been held that the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. In these circumstances, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, referred to supra, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) st…

ACIT Central Circle I(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3190/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.Venkatesh, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 10ASection 14ASection 153A

…the disallowance to the quantum of the exempt income received, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), wherein, it has been held that the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. In these circumstances, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, referred to supra, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) st…

ACIT Central Circle I(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3189/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.Venkatesh, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 10ASection 14ASection 153A

…the disallowance to the quantum of the exempt income received, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), wherein, it has been held that the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. In these circumstances, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, referred to supra, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) st…

Tonira Pharma Ltd., (Since Amalgamated With Ipca Lab. Ltd.), Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-4, Baroda

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

ITA 2042/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 2042/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri

Section 14ASection 28Section 36(1)(iii)

….6 concerns disallowance of Rs.19,216/- under s.14A of the Act. In the light of the fact that the exempt income stands at Rs.1134/-, disallowance is restricted to the aforesaid amount in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment 372 ITR 694 (Del). ITA No. 2042/Ahd/14 [Tonira Pharma. Ltd. vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2010-11 - 9 - 18. Ground No.6 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly partly allowed. 19. Ground No.7 concerns adjustment to the book profit towards disallowance made under s.14A of the Act. 20. In view of the decision of the Special bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Ltd. 165 I…

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

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 786/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 14A

…t Rs.194.91 lakhs. Accordingly, he disallowed a sum of Rs.189.77 lakhs after giving set off of the amount disallowed by the assessee. The Ld CIT(A), by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Ltd (372 ITR 694) and also the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Tranquil Realty Private Limited (ITA No.185/bang/2016), held that the disallowance cannot exceed the exempted income. Accordingly he confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income. ITA Nos.786 & 787/Bang/2019 CO Nos.46 & 47/Ba…

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. Tvs Srichakra Limited, Madurai

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

ITA 1928/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1928/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Tvs Srichakra Limited, Income Tax, Vs. 7-B, Tvs Building, West Veli Street, Corporate Circle 2, Madurai 625 001. Madurai. [Pan:Aaact5557G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V.Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Madurai Dated 28.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Act R.W. Rule 8D To The Extent Of Exempt Income Earned By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri AR. V.Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ia) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT in TCA No. 520 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of exempted income earned by the assessee. We also find that in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income 3 I.T.A. No.1928/M/18 earned. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. 5. In…

DCIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Chlorosulf Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-2014

ITA 3648/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dcit-1(1) (1), M/S Chlorosulf Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 533, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Manek Mahal, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, 90, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc2436P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak M. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)

Section 10Section 143Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The DCIT-1(1) (1), M/s Chlorosulf Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 533, 5th Floor, 6th Floor, Manek Mahal, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, 90, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACC2436P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR) Assessee by : Shri Deepak M. Jain (AR) Date of Hearing: 17/07/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 24/07/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order…

ITO, Corp Ward 6(3), Chennai vs. Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 638/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.638/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd., Corporate Ward 6(3), Vs. No. 73, South India House, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, Armenian Street, 7Th Floor, 121, M. G. Road, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aakcs5773M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 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.638/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/s. Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd., Corporate Ward 6(3), Vs. No. 73, South India House, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, Armenian Street, 7th Floor, 121, M. G. Road, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAKCS5773M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellan…

Kishore Muralidhar Agarwal, Hyderabad, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 90/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar JainFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…with respect to the same issue. Thus, we request Your Honor to kindly consider the above and delete the said addition. 3. Further we would like to draw your honours kind attention to the case of Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) where in it was held that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. "Assessee-company was engaged in diverse investment activities and in course of its business derived income from rent, sale of investments, dividend and interest -It declared tax exempt income inform of dividend to tune of Rs. 48…

Kishore Muralidhar Agarwal, Sec'Bad, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 753/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar JainFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…with respect to the same issue. Thus, we request Your Honor to kindly consider the above and delete the said addition. 3. Further we would like to draw your honours kind attention to the case of Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) where in it was held that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. "Assessee-company was engaged in diverse investment activities and in course of its business derived income from rent, sale of investments, dividend and interest -It declared tax exempt income inform of dividend to tune of Rs. 48…

Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

What is Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gcil Finance Ltd., Mumbai

A.C.I.T (Ods) - 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Value Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Payone Enterprises Ltd.), Mumbai

DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Payone Enterprises (P) Ltd., Mumbai

Buhler (India) Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

Medall Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Dhfl Holding Private Limited, Mumbai

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

ACIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd, Chennai

ACIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd, Chennai

ACIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd, Chennai

ACIT Central Circle I(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd., Chennai

ACIT Central Circle I(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd., Chennai

ACIT Central Circle I(4), Chennai vs. Rr Industries Ltd., Chennai

Tonira Pharma Ltd., (Since Amalgamated With Ipca Lab. Ltd.), Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-4, Baroda

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

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. Tvs Srichakra Limited, Madurai

DCIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Chlorosulf Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITO, Corp Ward 6(3), Chennai vs. Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd, Chennai

Kishore Muralidhar Agarwal, Hyderabad, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

Kishore Muralidhar Agarwal, Sec'Bad, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(4), Hyderabad