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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Crown Corporation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, Cross

ITA 2097/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs M/S Crown Asstt. Commissioner Of Corporation P. Ltd., Income-Tax D-5, Defence Colony, Circle 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacc8688D C.O. No.321/Del Of 2015 (In Ita No.2097/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Crown Corporation P. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax D-5, Defence Colony, Circle 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacc8688D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Revenue By Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 05.11.2018

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 24

…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); and (v) Joint Investments (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi). 15. In view of the above factual and legal position, we find that any addition made by the learned AO not in accordance with the mandate under rule 14A(2) and Rule 8D(1) cannot be sustained. We accordingly, delete the addition made on account of Section 14A(2) of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Hence the appeal of the Revenue is…

Ram Pratap Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1380/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ram Pratap Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Adnpd 2089 C) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-14, Kolkata Dated 21.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd.. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 250

…owance u/s 14A of the Act, the disallowance in question is restricted to debited income earned by the assessee which is Rs. 32,222/-. This view is supported by the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 2015 372 ITR 694 (Delhi). ITA No.1380/Kol/2018 Ram Pratap Dhanania A.Y.2014-15 2 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal and the ld. CIT(A)-14, Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicio…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asman Investments Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3138/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3138/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr

Section 50Section 74

…same to the extent of exempt income by way of dividend amounting to Rs.41,250/-. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 692 (Delhi) as relied upon on behalf of the assessee. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid decision has ruled that disallowance under s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the amount of tax exempt income. Therefore, in the wake of the aforesaid decision, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). 5. Ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismiss…

Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5842/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kotak Mahindra The Addl. Commissioner Of Investments Ltd. 27 Bkc, C- Vs. Income Tax Range 3(2) 27 G Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- Complex Bandra(E), 400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaach1075K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farrokh Irani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Farrokh Irani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kotak Mahindra The Addl. Commissioner of Investments Ltd. 27 BKC, C- Vs. Income Tax Range 3(2) 27 G Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- Complex Bandra(E), 400020. Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAACH1075K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Farrokh Irani, AR Revenue by : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 29/08/2018 Date of pronouncement : 28/09/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevan…

Zoetis Pharmaceuticals Research P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बिाम/ Zoetis Pharmaceutical Acit 11(3)(2) Research P. Ltd., Mumbai 31, Level-3, V. Kalpataru Synergy, Opp. Grand Hyatt, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadcp5293L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Siddharth Shah Revenue By : Shri. C.S. Sharma, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 3715/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.03.2018 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2016 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. I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri. Siddharth ShahFor Respondent: Shri. C.S. Sharma, DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बिाम/ Zoetis Pharmaceutical ACIT 11(3)(2) Research P. Ltd., Mumbai 31, Level-3, v. Kalpataru Synergy, Opp. Grand Hyatt, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AADCP5293L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Siddharth Shah Revenue by : Shri. C.S. Sharma, DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 19.09.2018 घोषणा क…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3125/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

…s and therefore, in any case the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of dividend income. Such is the Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 3125/Del/2016 and 2716/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) mandate of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 59 Taxmann.com 295 . In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of the revenue on this solitary ground is dismissed. 18. In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/09/2018. - - (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:25/09…

M/S. Menora Developers & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2716/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

Multiplier Share and Stock Advisor P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 3659/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Multiplier Shares & Stock The Dcit -4(3)(2), Advisors Private Limited, Aayakarbhavan, 401-B, Avihari Building, M.K. Road, S.V. Road, Near Simpoli Signal, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400092 Pan: Aadcm6646A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai (Advocate) Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/09/2018

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr. DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A

…A read with rule 8D (2) of the Income Tax Rules. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the said ground is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del). The assessee earned the exempt income amounting to Rs. 7,49,417/- against which the AO computed the addition at Rs. 25,70,149/-. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the amount of disallowance cannot sustain more than the exempt income earned by the assessee. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) re…

The ITO, Cochin vs. M.Skerala Ayurveda Ltd, Aluva

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 308/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.BindhuFor Respondent: Sri.Mathew Joseph

Section 14A

…penses. However, the ITAT restricted the disallowance to the exempted income earned during the relevant assessment year. In doing so, the ITAT followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited v. CIT [(2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.)]. The relevant finding of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-2010 reads as follows:- “10. Insofar as the disallowance of administrative and general expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, the assessee claims that, it did not incur any expenditure for earning exempt income. The assessee further contended that the…

The ITO, Cochin vs. M.Skerala Ayurveda Ltd, Aluva

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 307/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.BindhuFor Respondent: Sri.Mathew Joseph

Section 14A

DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Psl Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3032/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit- 7(3)(2) M/S Psl Limited Room No. 128A, Gr. Floor, 615, Psl Tower, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400059. Churchgate, Pan: Aaacp2734K Mumbai-400020. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Love Kumar (DR)For Respondent: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…nd, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that disallowance under section 14A should not exceed more than the exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment period and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment (372 ITR 694) 5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. There is no dispute that assessee earned exempt income only of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs during the relevant Financial Year. During the assessment the assessing officer invoked the provisions of Rule 8D and disallowed Rs. 16.50 crore under Ru…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M K Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2537/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12 M. K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 19, 14, Fire Brigade Lane, New Delhi. Connaught Place, Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Hersimran Grewal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…year is only Rs.4280/- and, therefore, the disallowance, if any, cannot exceed the amount of dividend received. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 and various other decisions. 7. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 8. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the…

M/S. M.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1677/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12 M. K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 19, 14, Fire Brigade Lane, New Delhi. Connaught Place, Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Hersimran Grewal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

Section 14A

M/S the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolkata

In the result, this Ground No

ITA 1262/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. The Hoogly Mills Co. Ltd..................…………….………………………………………..……….……..Appellant 10, Rampuria Chambers 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata – 700 026 [Pan : Aaact 9780 F] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata......……….......……….…..………...Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 11Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1 Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 29/04/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is A Manufacturer & Trader Of Jute Goods As Well As Trading In Shares, Securities & Commodities.

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. The Hoogly Mills Co. Ltd..................…………….………………………………………..……….……..Appellant 10, Rampuria Chambers 3rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata – 700 026 [PAN : AAACT 9780 F] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata......……….......……….…..………...Respondent Appearances by: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the h…

Anilraj Promoters & Fincon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1146/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Venkat Raman, Addl.CIT

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250

…he assessee during the year which is claimed as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act is Rs.6,02,230/-. The disallowance u/s 14A of the Act arrived at by the AO is Rs.17,38,804/-. 3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd vs CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694(Delhi) has held that the quantum of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the dividend income earned which is exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. 4. Moreover, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs REI Agro Ltd in GA No.3581 of 2013 ITAT No.20 of 2013 has laid down that, when disallowance ITA No.1146/Kol/2018 Anilraj Promoters…

DCIT 1(2)2, Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Finance Corportaion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 2352/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-1(2)(2), M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, Finance Corporation, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, United India Building, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 1St Floor, Sir P M Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaacm3751F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/08/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh (DR)

Section 143Section 14A

…at the Ld. CIT (A) has restricted the addition to the exempt income earned by the assessee by following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal aforesaid. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694(Del.), the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Since, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on the decision of the Delhi Bench of ITAT rendered in Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) and the principles of law laid down by the the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Inve…

Aadyashree Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Watd - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 944/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadyashree Holdings Pvt. Ltd……………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 2, Lal Bazar Street 5Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aadca 6193 N] Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Alok Nag, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 1St , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 24Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 10/04/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Although The Assessee Has Raised 8 Grounds Of Appeal, Altogether, Before Us, Only Two Issues Arise For Our Consideration 3. The First Issues Is Disallowance Made U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D. After Hearing Rival Contentions, We Direct The Assessing Officer To Restrict The Disallowance U/S 14A To The Quantum Of Dividend Earned By The Assessee During The Year I.E., Rs.3,268/-. This Would Be In Line With The Proposition Of Law Laid Down By The Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of [2015] 372 Itr 694 (Delhi) Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Wherein It Was Held As Follows:- “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 & Is Only To The Extent Of Disallowing Expenditure “Incurred By The Assessee In Relation To The Tax Exempt Income”. This Proportion Or Portion Of The Tax Exempt Income Surely Cannot Swallow The Entire Amount As Has Happened In This Case.”

Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…ct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to the quantum of dividend earned by the assessee during the year i.e., Rs.3,268/-. This would be in line with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, wherein it was held as follows:- “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 expenditur…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Fern Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 3682/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt Beena A Pillaiacit Vs. M/S Ranbaxy Health Care P Circle-15(1) Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate (Now M/S Fern Healthcare New Delhi P Ltd.) S-137, 2Nd Floor Greater Kailash Ii New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. M/S Fern Healthcare P Ltd. Circle-15(1) S-137, 2Nd Floor C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Greater Kailash Ii New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccr3509E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.Deepali Chandra, CIT, D.R

Section 10Section 14Section 14A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT Vs. M/s Ranbaxy Health Care P Circle-15(1) Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate (Now M/s Fern Healthcare New Delhi P Ltd.) S-137, 2nd Floor Greater Kailash II New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT Vs. M/s Fern Healthcare P Ltd. Circle-15(1) S-137, 2nd Floor C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Greater Kailash II New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACCR3509E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Ms.Deepali Chandra, CIT, D.R. Assessee by: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Date of Hearing 02nd August, 2018 Da…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ranbaxy Health Care Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 3108/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.Deepali Chandra, CIT, D.R

Section 10Section 14Section 14A

T vs. Capital Funds Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 981/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. No. 981/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 14A

…he disallowance at Rs. 30,59,175/- and after deducting the admitted disallowance of Rs. 8,21,338/-, disallowed Rs. 22,37,837/-. The Ld. AR pleaded that the ratio of the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd., vs CIT, reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), may be applied. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. :- 3 -: 4. We heard the rival submissions. Following the ratio of the Delhi High Court, supra, we direct that the disallowance be restricted to the amount originally disallowed by the assessee itself. Thus, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 5. In the re…