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 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Gini & Jony Ltd, Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 1892/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1892 & 1893/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 9(3)(2) M/S. Gini & Jony Ltd. 418, 4Th Floor, A-601, Citi Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059, स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1295N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Mittal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 37

…d. v. CIT in ITA 749/2014 vide judgment dated 02.09.2015 reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33(Del.) and decision of Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT in ITA no. 117 of 2015 vide judgment dated 25.02.2015 reported in (2015) 372 ITR 694(Del.). 12. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We have observed that the assessee had made investments in Shares/Mutual Funds which are capable of earning an exempt income albeit no exempt income was earned during the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year under consid…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S. Jubilant Enpro P. Ltd., Noida

In the result appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed and Cross Objection by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3485/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Acit, Circle 1 Vs. M/S Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. Noida 201 301 Plot No.1-A Sector 16 A Noida 201 301 Pan: Aaace0653L

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 14ASection 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2010-11 ACIT, Circle 1 vs. M/s Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. Noida 201 301 Plot No.1-A Sector 16 A Noida 201 301 PAN: AAACE0653L Cross Objection No. 194/Del/2017 (In ITA No. 3485/Del/2014) AY: 2010-11 M/s Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 1 Plot No.1-A Noida Sector 16 A Noida 201 301 PAN: AAACE0653L (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.D.R. Assessee by : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aditya Vohra, Adv. Date of Hearing : 04th July, 2018…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mirc Electronics Private Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3845/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3845 & 3846/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बिाम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) Mirc Electronics Room No. 216-A, 2Nd Floor Limited, G-1, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road Onida House, V. Mumbai-400020 Mahakali Caves Road, Midc, Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacm8055A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Satish Chandra Rajore Assessee By : Shri Dharmendra Singh सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Two Appeals, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3845 & 3846/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively , Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 27.03.2018 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively , The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Dated 28.03.2016 & 29.12.2016 Respectively Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nergy Private Limited (2014) 45 taxmann.com 116( Guj. HC) I.T.A. No.3845 & 3846/Mum/2018 c) Delite Enterprises (2010) 8 taxmann.com 10 (Bom. HC) d) CIT v. Winsome Textiles Industries Limited 319 ITR 204(P&H) e)Joint Investments Private Limited v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del. HC) f) Pr. CIT v. Empire Package Private Limited (2017) 81 taxmann.com 108 (P&H HC) 4. That‟s how Revenue is in appeal before us being aggrieved by relief granted by learned CIT(A). The learned DR relied upon assessment order passed by the AO while the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of the Mumbai-tribunal in assessee‟…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai vs. Smt Prabha Parakh, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue ‘s appeal for the

ITA 655/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 516 & 517/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, JCIT
Section 147Section 14A

…assessment year 2013-14, the assessee filed appeal against the addition made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of re-opening the assessment. Applying the ratio of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 Delhi, he directed the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D to the extent of exempt income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the above appeals. Aggrieved against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2009-10, the Revenue also filed an appeal. Since, these appeals are related to the same assessee, for convenience sake, they…

Smt. Prabha Parakh, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 10 (1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue ‘s appeal for the

ITA 517/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 516 & 517/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, JCIT
Section 147Section 14A

…assessment year 2013-14, the assessee filed appeal against the addition made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of re-opening the assessment. Applying the ratio of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 Delhi, he directed the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D to the extent of exempt income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the above appeals. Aggrieved against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2009-10, the Revenue also filed an appeal. Since, these appeals are related to the same assessee, for convenience sake, they…

Smt. Prabha Parakh, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 10 (1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue ‘s appeal for the

ITA 516/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 516 & 517/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, JCIT
Section 147Section 14A

…assessment year 2013-14, the assessee filed appeal against the addition made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of re-opening the assessment. Applying the ratio of the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 Delhi, he directed the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D to the extent of exempt income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the above appeals. Aggrieved against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2009-10, the Revenue also filed an appeal. Since, these appeals are related to the same assessee, for convenience sake, they…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3493/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…heminvest Ltd vs CIT (supra) held that disallowance contemplated u/s 14A shall not exceed exempt income. This legal proposition is further 16 ITA 3473/Mum/2017 reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment (P) Ltd vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del). Therefore, we are of the considered view that disallowance worked out by the AO by invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii) & 8D(2)(iii) is in excess of exempt income earned for the year and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we direct the AO to restrict disallowance to the extent of suo moto disallowance of Rs.10,000 made by the a…

Shri Ashit Baran Maganlal Desai, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 567/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 567/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ashit Baran Maganlal Desai -Vs- Ito, Ward-34(2), Kolkata [Pan: Acspd 8475 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ariyan Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pijush Mukherjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…disallowance made by the ld. AO. We hold that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (Del) wherein it was held : 9. In the present case, the AO has not firstly disclosed why the appellant/assessee's claim for attributing Rs. 2,97,440 as a disallowance under s. 14A had to be rejected. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd. (supra) says that the jurisdiction to proceed further and determine amounts is derived after examination of the accounts…

Mangal Keshav Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 209/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini, Hon’Blemangal Keshav Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit-4(3)(2), (Erstwhile Known As Mangal Mumbai. Keshav Holdings Ltd.) 501, Heritage Plaza, J.P. Road, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Pan No. Aaecm 6524 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal–CAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai – DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ereafter that the provisions of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable. We note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del)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 exempt income”. The relevant quote…

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Innus Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7240/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Vs M/S. Innus Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-11(1), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aacci1776N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Nipun Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 19.06.2018

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH.BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2013-14] vs M/s. Innus Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Circle-11(1), M-62 & 63, 1st Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. PAN-AACCI1776N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr.DR Respondent by Sh. Nipun Jain, CA Date of Hearing 11.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 19.06.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the Revenue has been directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A)-4, New Delhi dated 27.09.2017 for AY 2013-14, challenging the de…

Anil Basudevo Beriwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT 30(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5538/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…ome earned during the year is Rs.3,048/- and that the addition be restricted to the amount of exempt income. We find that the plea of the assessee is in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the disallowance 7 Anil Basudevo Beriwal u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of the tax exempt income. Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th June, 2018. (RAM LAL NEGI)…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Novelty Properties & Investment Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1934/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Novelty Properties & Income Tax – 2(2)(2) Investment Private Limited Room No.545, 5Th Floor Office No.1, Best Marg Aayakar Bhavan Next To Taj Mahal M.K. Road, Churchgate Hotel, Apollo Bunder Mumbai, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400 039 Pan/Gir No. Aaacn2635D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e u/s.14A.” 4 M/s. Novelty Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd., 7. Furthermore, the proposition that no disallowance can be made u/s.14A in case there is no exempt income is also supported by the following judicial pronouncements. 1. Joint Investments v. CIT (372 ITR 694 (Del) 2. Indus Valley Investments v DCIT being ITA No.3763/Del/2013 for A.Y.2009-10 dated 29/04/2015 3. M/s. Daga Global Chemicals vs. Asst. CIT being ITA No.5592/Mum/2012 dated 01/01/2015. 4. M/s. Slyvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd., v Dy. CIT being ITA No.8581/Mum/2011 for A.Y.2008-09 dated 24/02/2016. 8. The fact that assessee was not in receipt of any…

ITO, Ward-7(2)/Kol, Kolkata vs. M/S. Raghu Vinncom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 430/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Raghu Vinncom Pvt. Ward-7(2), P-7, Ltd., 207, Maharshi Chowringhee Square, Devendra Road, Room 5Th Floor, Kolkata-69 No.107, 6Th Floor, Kolkta- 007 [Pan No.Aabcr 3990 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 29-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 31-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Emanated From Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata’S Order 09.01.2017 In Cases No.10122/Cit(A)-18/16-17/Ito, Wd-7(2) Kol, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of quantification of the impugned disallowance. The CIT(A)’s discussion in para 4.3 has for considered various judicial precedents in partly accepting assessee grievance to the extent of its exempt income (supra) Hon'ble Delhi high court’s judgment in (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) Joint. Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT as well as hon'ble Punjab & Haryana high court’s decision in DCIT vs Empering Packaging Pvt. Ltd ITA 415/2015 dated 12.06.2016 decide the very issue in assessee’s favour. The Revenue fails to pin-point any distinction on facts or law therein. We thus reject its sole substantive ground pleaded in the insta…

Essar Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1363/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. M/S Essar Properties Pvt. 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., 11, K K Marg, Essar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, House, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400024. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essar Properties Pvt., Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. Essar House, 11Keshavrao 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Khadya Marg, Mahalaxmi, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

…AY 2008-09 dated 24.02.2016. The Ld. counsel further submits that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by assessee during the year. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in (i) Joint Investment v. CIT [372 ITR 694 (Del)], (ii) Assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 (ITA No: 423/Mum/2015) dated 19.07.2016, (iii) Indus Valley Investments v. DCIT being ITA No. 3763/Mum/2013 for AY 2009- 10 dated 29.04.2015, (iv) M/s Daga Global Chemicals v. Asst. CIT being ITA No. 5592/Mum/2012 dated 01.01.2015, (v) M/s Slyvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT being ITA No. 8581/Mum…

DCIT 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1101/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. M/S Essar Properties Pvt. 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., 11, K K Marg, Essar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, House, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400024. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essar Properties Pvt., Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. Essar House, 11Keshavrao 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Khadya Marg, Mahalaxmi, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

…AY 2008-09 dated 24.02.2016. The Ld. counsel further submits that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by assessee during the year. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in (i) Joint Investment v. CIT [372 ITR 694 (Del)], (ii) Assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 (ITA No: 423/Mum/2015) dated 19.07.2016, (iii) Indus Valley Investments v. DCIT being ITA No. 3763/Mum/2013 for AY 2009- 10 dated 29.04.2015, (iv) M/s Daga Global Chemicals v. Asst. CIT being ITA No. 5592/Mum/2012 dated 01.01.2015, (v) M/s Slyvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT being ITA No. 8581/Mum…

Digvijay Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 519/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 5708 & 5709/Mum/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2005-06 Acit Circle 11(2) Digvijay Investments Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, (Now Merged With M/S. Placid Ltd.) Vs. Room No.26, 7, Munshi Premchand Sarani, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Hastings, Koltaka 700 069. Kolkata 700 022. Pan Aaacd5532B Now Merged With Pan Aabcp5447J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 5

…arguments relied on the following decisions: i)Indus Valley Investment v. DCIT ITA No.3763/Del/2013 ii) Sylvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.8581/Mum/2011 iii) Pr. CIT vs. Zee News Ltd. ITA No.785 of 2015 (Bombay) iv) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) Finally, the learned AR prayed before the Bench that the appeal may kind be allowed. 10. The learned DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He has also filed detailed written submissions and requested the Bench to consider the same and decide the issue in the light of the said written submissions. 11. We have heard rival submi…

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Digvijay Investments Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5708/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 5708 & 5709/Mum/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2005-06 Acit Circle 11(2) Digvijay Investments Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, (Now Merged With M/S. Placid Ltd.) Vs. Room No.26, 7, Munshi Premchand Sarani, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Hastings, Koltaka 700 069. Kolkata 700 022. Pan Aaacd5532B Now Merged With Pan Aabcp5447J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 5

…arguments relied on the following decisions: i)Indus Valley Investment v. DCIT ITA No.3763/Del/2013 ii) Sylvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.8581/Mum/2011 iii) Pr. CIT vs. Zee News Ltd. ITA No.785 of 2015 (Bombay) iv) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) Finally, the learned AR prayed before the Bench that the appeal may kind be allowed. 10. The learned DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He has also filed detailed written submissions and requested the Bench to consider the same and decide the issue in the light of the said written submissions. 11. We have heard rival submi…

Babcock Borsig Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(2), Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 512/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.472/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Hanshing, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…the assessee was only Rs 88,75,687/- and hence the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the dividend income. Reliance in this regard is placed 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 (Del). Since the assessee itself had voluntarily disallowed a sum of Rs 1,37,25,202/-, we direct the ld AO not to make further disallowance beyond that amount under normal provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds 1 to 2 raised by the assessee on non- recording of satisfaction by the ld AO are dismissed. The Grounds 3 and 4 raised by the as…

DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited (Formerly Known As Matrix Laboratories Limited), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92ASection 92C

…ncome claimed exemption i.e., in this case amount of Rs. 35,08,501/-. In support, assessee has relied on the following case law: a. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Empire Package Pvt. Ltd., [286 CTR 457 (P & H-HC)]; b. Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT [372 ITR 694 (Del- HC)]; c. K. Ratanchand & Co., Vs. ITO [45 ITR (Trib) 608 (Ahd- Trib); d. Pest Control India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, ITAT Mumbai dated 31-10-2017; e. TGV Projects & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT ITAT, Hyderabad, dated 28-02-2017 (SMC); f. Avshesh Mercantile (P) Ltd., Vs. DCIT [26 taxmann.com 43 (Mumbai)/(2012) 54 SOT 19]; g. CIT Vs. Oriental…

Mylan Laboratories Limited (Formerly Known As Matrix Laboratories Limited), Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 362/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92ASection 92C

…ncome claimed exemption i.e., in this case amount of Rs. 35,08,501/-. In support, assessee has relied on the following case law: a. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Empire Package Pvt. Ltd., [286 CTR 457 (P & H-HC)]; b. Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT [372 ITR 694 (Del- HC)]; c. K. Ratanchand & Co., Vs. ITO [45 ITR (Trib) 608 (Ahd- Trib); d. Pest Control India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, ITAT Mumbai dated 31-10-2017; e. TGV Projects & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT ITAT, Hyderabad, dated 28-02-2017 (SMC); f. Avshesh Mercantile (P) Ltd., Vs. DCIT [26 taxmann.com 43 (Mumbai)/(2012) 54 SOT 19]; g. CIT Vs. Oriental…