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

M/S. Rocket Engineering Corporation, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Kolhapur

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

ITA 632/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.631 & 632/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tal Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 7. We find that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DCIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del). 8. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income only. The ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is thus, partly allowed and the ground of appeal No.1 raised by assessee is dismissed. 9. The facts and is…

M/S. Rocket Engineering Corporation, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Kolhapur

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

ITA 631/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.631 & 632/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tal Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 7. We find that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DCIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del). 8. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income only. The ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is thus, partly allowed and the ground of appeal No.1 raised by assessee is dismissed. 9. The facts and is…

Amita Avinash Phadnis, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11(5), Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2964/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2964/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Rules’). On without prejudice basis, the assessee submitted that the disallowance be restricted to exempt income for the year under consideration in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DCIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del). 4. The issue raised on without prejudice basis i.e. in restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DCIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Applying the said ratio, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under section 1…

Harsh Mahendra Shah, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3400/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Page 1 of 7 Harsh Mahendra Shah Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat/ITA No.3400/Ahd/2016/A.Y.2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ीमती िदवा िसंह, "ाियक सद" तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.3400/AHD/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Harsha Mahendra Shah, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 91, Khatodara, GIDC, B/h Sub Jail, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [PAN: BMDPS 4031 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Mehul Shah – CA िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Ass…

M/S Lamina Suspensions Products Limited, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Taaaax Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are partly allowed

ITA 337/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2018 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Lamina Suspensions Products Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of #13-12-1394, 8Th Floor, Rambhavan Income Tax, Complex, Kokial Bail, Range -2, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru. Pan : Aaacl 3061 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nagendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Nagendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…ds at Sl. Nos. 1 and 6 being general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon. 5. Grounds 2 to 4 – Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D 5.1 We have heard the rival submissions. 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…

M/S Lamina Suspensions Products Ltd, Mangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-2, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are partly allowed

ITA 336/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2018 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Lamina Suspensions Products Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of #13-12-1394, 8Th Floor, Rambhavan Income Tax, Complex, Kokial Bail, Range -2, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru. Pan : Aaacl 3061 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nagendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Nagendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…ds at Sl. Nos. 1 and 6 being general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon. 5. Grounds 2 to 4 – Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D 5.1 We have heard the rival submissions. 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…

M/S. Religare Enterprises Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1549/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2001-02 Religare Enterprises Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle 15(1), Gys Global, 7Th Floor, New Delhi. A-3,4,5 Plot No.11, Sector 125. Noida. Pan: Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rohit Jain , Advocate Mstejasvi Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2019 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain , AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ved and such disallowance cannot in any case, exceed exempt dividend income at Rs.87,05,855/- earned during the relevant year , this proposition is based on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd. vs CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Del). The ratio of the Hon’ble High Court holds the field and while respectfully following the same, we find that the disallowance shall not exceed the exempt income. We, therefore, set aside the issue and remand the matter to the file of the learned AO to work out the disallowance by calculating the average investment under Rule 8D(2)(ii)/(iii)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dbh International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5005/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Dr. B.R.R. Kumaray: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. G.S. Grewal, FCA and Sh. Tanpreet, C.A
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2010-11 DCIT, Circle 10(1) DBH International Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi N-75, Connaught Place vs. New Delhi 110 001 PAN: AAACD0085D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr.D.R. Respondent by : Sh. G.S. Grewal, FCA and Sh. Tanpreet, C.A. Date of Hearing : 01/01/2019 Date of Pronouncement: ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 10.06.2014 of Ld. CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi o…

M/S. R.D.M. Care (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT(A)-Xviii, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6194/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. 2010-11 R.D.M. Care (India) Vs. Cit(A)-Xviii Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi 2/12, West Patel Nagar New Delhi 110 008 Pan: Aaacr1673H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ance, made addition of Rs.10,24,677/-, which is almost 63% more than exempt income earned by assessee during the year. Assessee has also placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Joint Investment Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT., reported in (2015) 59 Taxmann.com 295, and submitted that disallowance under section 14 A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by assessee. 16.2. He also submitted that average investment computed by Ld.AO included mutual funds, which cannot yield any dividend income. 16.3. He prayed for deletion of addition made by Ld.AO. 16.4. On the contrary, Ld.DR placed reliance upon de…

M/S. Patrex Vyapar Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1921/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 13Section 14ASection 73

…in relation to the said exempt income cannot exceed Rs.72,000/- being the amount of dividend income actually earned. Since this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Limited –vs.- CIT (372 ITR 694), wherein it was held that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee, we allow the limited relief claimed on behalf of the assessee and restrict the disallowance of Rs.8,81,839/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D to Rs.72,000/-. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee i…

DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai vs. Kesari Sanjey Kundalia, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2115/CHNY/2018[2014--15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Guru Bashyam,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.Karunakaran,Advocate
Section 14A

…ai Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.1515/Mds/2016 & 1666/Mds/2017 for assessment years 2012- 13 & 2013-14 dated 21.12.2017 wherein the Tribunal had followed the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi). It was a submission that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was liable to be reversed. 4. In reply, the ld.A.R vehemently supported the order of the ld.CIT(Appeals). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assess…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd.(Hindustan Vidyut Product Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1616/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

…1,485/-; respectively. It is noticed at the outset that the CIT(A) has relied upon as a catena of case law in restricting the impugned disallowance to the extent of exempt income only. Hon'ble Delhi high court’s judgment in Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour that such disallowance cannot exceed the relevant corresponding exempt income figure. We therefore reject Revenue’s instant third substantive ground as well for this precise alone. 8. The Revenue’s last substantive ground in both assessment yeas seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s actio…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd.(Hindustan Vidyut Product Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1615/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

…1,485/-; respectively. It is noticed at the outset that the CIT(A) has relied upon as a catena of case law in restricting the impugned disallowance to the extent of exempt income only. Hon'ble Delhi high court’s judgment in Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour that such disallowance cannot exceed the relevant corresponding exempt income figure. We therefore reject Revenue’s instant third substantive ground as well for this precise alone. 8. The Revenue’s last substantive ground in both assessment yeas seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s actio…

M/S New Kenilworth Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range 8, Kolkata

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

ITA 2005/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2005/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S New Kenilworth Hotel Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Range-8, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcn 0986 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Srikumar Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40a

…of Rs. 674.40/-. Hence the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act could be restricted only to the extent of dividend income. 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 wherein it was held as under: 2 3 M/s New Kenilworth Hotel Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 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…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Auto Components Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2094/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.M.S.Nethrapal,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida,Advocate
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" एवं एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.2093 & 2094/Chny/2018 And Cross Objections Nos.130 & 129/Chny/2018 Assessment years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vs. M/s.Sundaram Auto Components ACIT, Pvt Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2), Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai. Haddows Road, Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAACS 7027 G ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.M.S.Nethrapa…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Auto Components Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2093/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.M.S.Nethrapal,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida,Advocate
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" एवं एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.2093 & 2094/Chny/2018 And Cross Objections Nos.130 & 129/Chny/2018 Assessment years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vs. M/s.Sundaram Auto Components ACIT, Pvt Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2), Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai. Haddows Road, Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAACS 7027 G ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.M.S.Nethrapa…

Rkr Investments Services(P) Ltd, Yeditha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.330/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year :2014-15) M/S Rkr Investments Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-225/1, Paper Mill Road Ward-2 Yeditha Kakinada East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaccr9667B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.330/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year :2014-15) M/s RKR Investments Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-225/1, Paper Mill Road Ward-2 Yeditha Kakinada East Godavari Dist. [PAN : AACCR9667B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR…

Roger Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(4), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 996/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n the impugned Assessment Year is ₹80,318/- from dividend. I therefore restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of exempt income only and grant part relief to the assessee in view of hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in CIT vs. Joint Investment Ltd. 372 ITR 694 (Del). 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 16/11/2018 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 16/11/2018 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Roger Engineering Pvt. Ltd. P-26, Transport Depot, Kol-088 2. ""यथ"/Respondent-Inc…

Shri Vinay Bhasin, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5608/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Vinay Bhasin, Vs Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax C-14, South Extension, Part-Ii, Range-37, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaapb3445J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm Challenging The Order Dated 30.07.2015 In Appeal No. 180/2011-12, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi (Ld. Cit(A)), Assessee Filed This Appeal.

Section 14Section 143(3)

…at there is no proper record of satisfaction as to the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income. By following the decision reported in CIT versus Taikisha Engineering India Ltd 275 CTR (Del.) 316 and Joint Investments (P) Ltd versus CIT 372 ITR 694 6 (Del), we are of the opinion that the AO at the first instance should have examined the correctness of the statement made by the assessee that no expenses were incurred for earning the exempt income during the year and if and only if the learned AO is not satisfied on this account after making reference to the accounts, he is entitled to adopt…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A.K. Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1366/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs M/S A.K. Capital Dy. Commissioner Of Services Ltd., Income-Tax 609, 6Th Floor, Antriksh Circle 3, New Delhi Bhawan, 22 K.G. Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca1069L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.11.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm Challenging The Order Dated 29.12.2015 In Appeal No.336/15-16 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-I, New Delhi

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…38 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 240 (Delhi); (iii) Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs CIT-III (2017) 398 ITR 51 (Delhi); (iv) Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi); (v) Joint Investments (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi); and the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), learned AR contended that without recording any reasons for rejecting the computation of disallowance worked out by the assessee and without generating requisite satisfaction to invoke the provisions u/s 14A read w…