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 Circle 1, Salem vs. Sree Rangaraj Steel & Alloys Private Limited, Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 815/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Mr.Sridhar Dora,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.Sridhar,Advocate,Erode
Section 14A

…d upwards accordingly. Hence, the grounds of appeals are partly allowed.” 3. During the course of hearing, ld.AR submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt Ltd., Vs.C.I.T in 372 ITR 694(Delhi) wherein it was held as under:- ’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 Section 14A had to be rejected. Taikisha says that the jurisdiction to proceed further and determine amounts is derived after examination of the accounts and reje…

ACIT Circle 1, Salem vs. M/S Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Slem) Ltd, Salem

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 814/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Mr.Sridhar Dora,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Ms.S.Sriniranjani,Advocate
Section 263Section 36(1)(iv)

…upwards accordingly. Hence, the grounds of appeals are partly allowed.” 10. During the course of hearing, ld.AR submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt Ltd., Vs.C.I.T in 372 ITR 694(Delhi) wherein it was held as under:- ’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 Section 14A had to be rejected. Taikisha says that 9 I.T.A. Nos.813 & 814/chny/2018 the jurisdiction to proceed further and determine amounts is derived after ex…

ACIT Circle 1, Salem vs. M/S Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Slem) Ltd, Salem

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 813/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Mr.Sridhar Dora,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Ms.S.Sriniranjani,Advocate
Section 263Section 36(1)(iv)

…upwards accordingly. Hence, the grounds of appeals are partly allowed.” 10. During the course of hearing, ld.AR submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt Ltd., Vs.C.I.T in 372 ITR 694(Delhi) wherein it was held as under:- ’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 Section 14A had to be rejected. Taikisha says that 9 I.T.A. Nos.813 & 814/chny/2018 the jurisdiction to proceed further and determine amounts is derived after ex…

ACIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Varun Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 174/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Sweta Narvekar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.174/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACIT Circle-2(3)(1), M/s. Varun Corporation Pvt. Room No. 552, 5th Floor, Ltd., 6, Shoorji Vallabhdas Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 vs. Mumbai-400020 PAN : AAACK1582A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR) Assessee by: Ms. Sweta Narvekar (AR) Date of Hearing : 04.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal…

M/S. Mahle Filter Systems (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 314/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(33)Section 14ASection 24Section 37(1)

…Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules’]. 2. At the very outset, the ld. AR stated that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 372 ITR 694, total disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot be more than the exempt income. 3. We find force in the contention of the ld. AR. Without going into the merits of the disallowance, we find that the assessee has disclosed exempt dividend income of Rs. 20,995/- u/s 10(33) of the Act. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court [supr…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahle Filter Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6679/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(33)Section 14ASection 24Section 37(1)

…Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules’]. 2. At the very outset, the ld. AR stated that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 372 ITR 694, total disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot be more than the exempt income. 3. We find force in the contention of the ld. AR. Without going into the merits of the disallowance, we find that the assessee has disclosed exempt dividend income of Rs. 20,995/- u/s 10(33) of the Act. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court [supr…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Kapil Taneja, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 711/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Karni Dan Singh (Jt. CIT)For Respondent: Shri PC Parwal (CA)
Section 14A

…uld have recorded his satisfaction before resorting to the disallowance as per rule 8D, however, these elements are missing from the assessment order. 5 Shri Kapil Taneja, Jaipur. The Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2015]372 ITR 694/233 Taxman 117/59 taxmann.com 295 held that- By no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure “incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exe…

M/S Nadathur Estates Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3248/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member Ita Nos.3247 & 3248(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2009-10) M/S Nadathur Estates Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.23, 3Rd Floor, Nadathur Palace, 8H Main Rod, Jayanagar, 3Rd Block, Bangalore-560 011 Panno.Aabcn0228P Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bangalore Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 14ASection 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “A”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3247 & 3248(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2009-10) M/s Nadathur Estates Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.23, 3rd Floor, Nadathur Palace, 8h Main Rod, Jayanagar, 3rd Block, Bangalore-560 011 PANNo.AABCN0228P Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri B.R.Sudheendra, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Praveen Karanth, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 19-06-2019 Date of pronouncement : 28-06-2019 O R D E R…

Essar Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4444/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhessar Ports Ltd. Acit-6(2)(2), Essar House, 11, Keshavrao Room No. 563 (C), Vs. Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400034. M.K. Road, Pan: Aaace8391D Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala Ar’S Respondent By : Shri Mukundraj Chate Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mukundraj Chate DR
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…ction14A is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned during the year. In support of this submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in Joint Investment 11 ITA No. 4444 Mum 2017-Essar Ports Ltd. Vs CIT ( 372 ITR 694 Delhi) , PCIT Vs State Bank of India [99taxmann.com 286 (SC)] PCIT Vs State Bank of Patiala {393 ITR476 (P&H)}, Delhi Tribunal in Indus Valley Investment Vs DCIT (ITA No. 3763/Delhi/ 2013 dated 29.04.2015 and M/s Slyvex Cable Co. Pvt Ltd VS DCIT ( ITA No. 8582/Mum/2011 dated 24.02.2016. 13. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representati…

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…y the assessee during the impugned assessment year and hence in view of decision(s) of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33(Delhi) and in the case Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2015) 372 ITR 694(Delhi) as well as decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of The PCIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. in ITA No. 51 of 2016 vide judgment dated 13.10.2016, we are of the view that no disallowance of expenditure purported to be incurred for earning of an exempt income be made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act in view of the claim that no exempt incom…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 812/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…y the assessee during the impugned assessment year and hence in view of decision(s) of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33(Delhi) and in the case Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2015) 372 ITR 694(Delhi) as well as decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of The PCIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. in ITA No. 51 of 2016 vide judgment dated 13.10.2016, we are of the view that no disallowance of expenditure purported to be incurred for earning of an exempt income be made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act in view of the claim that no exempt incom…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Skytop Buildes Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2114/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…idend income amounting to Rs.2,572 in the year under consideration whereas the Assessing Officer had disallowed an amount of Rs.8,26,018 under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii) & (iii), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of 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…

Td Toll Road Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1646/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Td Toll Road Private Ltd., Dcit-15(3)(1) 361, 3Rd Floor, North Wing, Room No. 451, Reliance Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Santacruz (E), M.K Road, Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct6395C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra Sanghavi Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1646/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.01.2018, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-24/Dcit-15(3)(1)/It-244/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ice, it was also submitted by assessee that disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed exempt income of Rs. 10,67,947/- received by the assessee. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694(Delhi). 3.4. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee and worked out disallowance u/s 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules. The AO observed that the investments in shares and mutual funds as on 31.03.2014 and 31.03.2013 are as under:- I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2018 Sr, Particulars As at HAS at NO. 31/03/2014 31/03/2013 Amt. in…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Raichur vs. Shri G J Fernandez, Raichur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed and for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 902/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K.R., JCIT (DR)
Section 14A

…disallowance cannot be made beyond this amount of dividend income earned by assessee in this year. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), copy available on pages 23 to 26 of the paper book. In particular, our attention was drawn to para 9 of this judgment. He submitted that in this case, it was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that by no stretch of imagination can section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax-exempt income is to be disallowed. But…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Raichur vs. Shri G J Fernandez, Raichur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed and for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 901/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K.R., JCIT (DR)
Section 14A

…disallowance cannot be made beyond this amount of dividend income earned by assessee in this year. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), copy available on pages 23 to 26 of the paper book. In particular, our attention was drawn to para 9 of this judgment. He submitted that in this case, it was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that by no stretch of imagination can section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax-exempt income is to be disallowed. But…

Mukand Global Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4307/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukand Global Finance Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 3(2)(1) 3Rd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan Room No. 608, Aayakar Bhavan 226 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacm 8348 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.A. Gohel Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

For Appellant: Shri M.A. GohelFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 115JSection 14A

…the assessee that since assessee himself made suomoto disallowance to the extent of dividend income earned i.e. ₹.56,250/- there shall not be any further disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. 6. In the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [372 ITR 694] the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act should not exceed the exempt income. The Revenue filed SLP against this decision and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT [378 ITR 33]. 3 M/…

DCIT, Cir.1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ardor in-Fin Private Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms above

ITA 2739/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)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)…

M/S Coffeeday Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2820/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 14A

…by another coordinate bench in the case of M/s Way2Wealth Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1679/Bang/2017) dated 1/6/2018, wherein the said coordinate bench has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd., 372 ITR 694 and Holecim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282. The ld AR submitted that the disallowance voluntarily made by the assessee u/s 14A of the Act is more than the amount of dividend and hence no further disallowance is called for, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 3 of 5 5. On the contrary, the ld DR supported the order passed by ld CIT(A).…

Greenland Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 690/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271

….) 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)…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. PAN India Network Infravest Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3198/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Neil Phillip
Section 115JSection 14A

…sallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Cheminvest v/s CIT, [2015] 378 IT 33; ii) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 372 ITR 694; iii) PCIT v/s Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 101 taxmann.com 167; and iv) DCIT v/s Mahindra CIE Automotive Ltd., ITA no.6659/Mum./ 2014, dated 11.04.2018. 7. Further, learned Authorised Representative submitted that while computing book profit under section 115JB(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance under secti…