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 367,164 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, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1432/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…e. The assessee did not claim exemption of this dividend income in the computation statements of the respective ay and pleaded that the disallowances, if any , may be restricted to dividend income earned as per the decision of Joint Investment vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694, Delhi. He has also pleaded that since the assessee has not claimed the dividend income as an exemptincome inthe computation statements of the respective ay, even the restriction of the disallowances in accordance with the ratio of the Delhi HC, supra, is also not required . However, if it is held that disallowances are required , then the AO m…

ACIT, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1431/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…e. The assessee did not claim exemption of this dividend income in the computation statements of the respective ay and pleaded that the disallowances, if any , may be restricted to dividend income earned as per the decision of Joint Investment vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694, Delhi. He has also pleaded that since the assessee has not claimed the dividend income as an exemptincome inthe computation statements of the respective ay, even the restriction of the disallowances in accordance with the ratio of the Delhi HC, supra, is also not required . However, if it is held that disallowances are required , then the AO m…

East Coast Constructions and Industries Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 864/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…e. The assessee did not claim exemption of this dividend income in the computation statements of the respective ay and pleaded that the disallowances, if any , may be restricted to dividend income earned as per the decision of Joint Investment vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694, Delhi. He has also pleaded that since the assessee has not claimed the dividend income as an exemptincome inthe computation statements of the respective ay, even the restriction of the disallowances in accordance with the ratio of the Delhi HC, supra, is also not required . However, if it is held that disallowances are required , then the AO m…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5269/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mayur Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

…all during the year. In this regard, the assesse relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Power & Utilities Ltd (supra) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment (P). Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694. 19. On the other hand, the learned DR strongly supported the order of CIT(A) and also invited our reference to CBDT circular 5 of 2014 to argue that once, there is an investment in shares which are capable of earning of exempt income, even if no exempt income is earned during the year, the disallowances contemplated u/s 14A should be worked out…

Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 4992/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mayur Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

…all during the year. In this regard, the assesse relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Power & Utilities Ltd (supra) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment (P). Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694. 19. On the other hand, the learned DR strongly supported the order of CIT(A) and also invited our reference to CBDT circular 5 of 2014 to argue that once, there is an investment in shares which are capable of earning of exempt income, even if no exempt income is earned during the year, the disallowances contemplated u/s 14A should be worked out…

Acutiy Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5232/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Acuity Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Dcit 8(1), C-1-5, Sarathi Chs Ltd., Khira (Now Dcit, Circle-12(1)(1), Nagar, S.V. Road, Santacruz(W), Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai-400016. Pan: Aafcm3366D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash K. Jotwani (ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…er section 14A should not exceed the dividend income. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble 2 ITA No. 5232/M/2015- M/s Acuity Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (372 ITR 694) and the decision co-ordinate bench in Daga Global Chemicals Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 5658/Mum/13 dated 09.12.2016. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted the order of authorities below. 4. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the material available on record. We have noted that during the year under considerati…

Olive Bar & Kitchen P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 7566/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income 14Th Pali Hill Tourist Hotel, Tax – 13(1)(1), Khar West, Mumbai Mumbai – 400052 Vs. Pan: Aaaco5346G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Mahesh O. Rajora (Ar) Assessee By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2018

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)For Respondent: Shri Mahesh O. Rajora (AR)
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…3 the aforesaid decisions, disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the findings of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), in which it has been held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition made by the AO. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. departmental representative relying on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that since the addition has been made in accordance with the…

Shri Viren Shantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

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

ITA 3306/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am

For Appellant: Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 10-01-2018
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…of material placed on record, we observe that assessee has earned exempt income in the form of dividend of Rs. 26,260/- from various investment in shares. We further notice that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) held that the window for ITA.No.3306/Ahd/2015 Assessment year 2012-13 - 3 – disallowance is indicted in section 14A and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to tax exempt income. We have also noticed that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Halim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 C…

Wadhwagroup Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6357/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner Of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, Central Circle- Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd बिधम/ 5(4), Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Platina, Plot C-59, G Floor, Air India Building. Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Nariman Point Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 6357 & 6268/Mum/2016 AY: 2012-13 M/s Wadhwan Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT CC-5(4) DCIT Vs. M/s Wadhawan Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AACCV3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, C…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhawan Group Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6268/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner Of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, Central Circle- Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd बिधम/ 5(4), Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Platina, Plot C-59, G Floor, Air India Building. Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Nariman Point Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 6357 & 6268/Mum/2016 AY: 2012-13 M/s Wadhwan Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT CC-5(4) DCIT Vs. M/s Wadhawan Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AACCV3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, C…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Accel Media Ventures Limited, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 866/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 73

…isallowance / addition, the arguments advanced by the appellant and The appellant has earned of its own admission of Rs.10,256 as dividend income during the period under consideration. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P Ltd v. CIT 372 ITR 694 restricted the disallowance made by the AO to the extent of exempt income earned by the appellant. The Chennai Tribunal in the case of M/s.Ambattur Clothing Ltd vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.1436,1643/Mds/2014 & 910/Mds/2015 dt 28.12.2015 held that disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule BD should not exceed the exempt income. Respectfull…

DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. El Forge Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands

ITA 2143/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2143/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate
Section 14A

…the quantum of such disallowance under Rule 8D. Such disallowance came to "33,64,743/-. 3. On assessee’s appeal, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Joint Investments Private Limited vs. CIT, 372 ITR 694 restricted the disallowance to the quantum of exempt income claimed by the assessee. 4. Now before us, ld. Departmental Representative strongly assailing the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that ld. Assessing Officer could make a disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r.8D, even when there was nil or minimal exemp…

ACIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards(I), Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all appeals of Revenue,( that is, ITA No

ITA 1635/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1633, 1634 & 1635/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata Vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. 6Th Floor, Large Tax Payer Unit, 180, 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 700 Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 1682 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Respondent By :Shri D. S. Damle, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Section 143(3)/263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Three Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.1633/Kol/2016, A.Y. 2009- 10. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd.

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…he AO has passed his order against the provision of law. In holding so, we draw support from judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dt. 25.2.2015 reported in M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. ITA No.1633, 1634 &1635/Kol/2016 A.Yrs.: 2009-10,2011-12& 2012-13 (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.) wherein it was held that without recording satisfaction there could be no question of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. Besides the above, we find that there was sufficient fund available with the assessee. Therefore any inference can be drawn that the impugned investment was made out own fund of assessee. In this connection, we rely…

ACIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards(I), Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all appeals of Revenue,( that is, ITA No

ITA 1634/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1633, 1634 & 1635/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata Vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. 6Th Floor, Large Tax Payer Unit, 180, 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 700 Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 1682 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Respondent By :Shri D. S. Damle, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Section 143(3)/263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Three Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.1633/Kol/2016, A.Y. 2009- 10. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd.

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…he AO has passed his order against the provision of law. In holding so, we draw support from judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dt. 25.2.2015 reported in M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. ITA No.1633, 1634 &1635/Kol/2016 A.Yrs.: 2009-10,2011-12& 2012-13 (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.) wherein it was held that without recording satisfaction there could be no question of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. Besides the above, we find that there was sufficient fund available with the assessee. Therefore any inference can be drawn that the impugned investment was made out own fund of assessee. In this connection, we rely…

ACIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards(I), Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all appeals of Revenue,( that is, ITA No

ITA 1633/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1633, 1634 & 1635/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata Vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. 6Th Floor, Large Tax Payer Unit, 180, 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 700 Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 1682 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Respondent By :Shri D. S. Damle, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Section 143(3)/263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Three Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.1633/Kol/2016, A.Y. 2009- 10. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd.

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…he AO has passed his order against the provision of law. In holding so, we draw support from judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dt. 25.2.2015 reported in M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. ITA No.1633, 1634 &1635/Kol/2016 A.Yrs.: 2009-10,2011-12& 2012-13 (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.) wherein it was held that without recording satisfaction there could be no question of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. Besides the above, we find that there was sufficient fund available with the assessee. Therefore any inference can be drawn that the impugned investment was made out own fund of assessee. In this connection, we rely…

Madhusha Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6676/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 2(22)(e)

…e disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income, we are in agreement with this contention. This view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del). Accordingly we direct the AO to restrict the addition to the exempt income. Accordingly this ground is partly allowed in favour of the assessee. 27. In view of the above findings the assessee’s appeals for the A.Y. 2006-07 being ITA No. 1086/Del/2015, A.Y. 2007-08 being ITA No. 1087/Del/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 being ITA No. 1088/Del/2015 are a…

Madhusha Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6675/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 2(22)(e)

…e disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income, we are in agreement with this contention. This view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del). Accordingly we direct the AO to restrict the addition to the exempt income. Accordingly this ground is partly allowed in favour of the assessee. 27. In view of the above findings the assessee’s appeals for the A.Y. 2006-07 being ITA No. 1086/Del/2015, A.Y. 2007-08 being ITA No. 1087/Del/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 being ITA No. 1088/Del/2015 are a…

Pyramid Consulting Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1972/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1972/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Pyramid Consulting Dcit Cir 3 Engineers Pvt. Ltd, R.No.2, B Wing, Ashar It 6T H Floor, Wing B, Park, Rd No. 16Z, Wagle V. I-Think Techno Campus, Estate, Thane Off Eastern Express Highway, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane(W), 400607 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccp1217D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41Section 41(1)

…assessee during relevant previous year, it is claimed that no disallowance can be made keeping in view ratio of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2105) 378 ITR 33(Del) and Joint Investments Private Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694(Del) . It is not discernible from the orders of the authorities below as to the quantum of exempt income earned by the assessee during relevant period but perusal of the statement of facts filed before learned CIT(A)/audited balance sheet revealed that the assessee has investment of Rs. 25,000/- in shares of Saraswat Co-op Bank Limited wherein in…

ITO 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Millennium Appliances India Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5149/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-3(2)(2), M/S Millenium Room No.673, 6Th Floor, Appliances India Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 171-C, Mittal Court, Vs. M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaccm7838D

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 153A

…e disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income, we are in agreement with this contention. This view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del). Accordingly we direct the AO to restrict the addition to the exempt income. Accordingly this ground is partly allowed in favour of the assessee. 27. In view of the above findings the assessee’s appeals for the A.Y. 2006-07 being ITA No. 1086/Del/2015, A.Y. 2007-08 being ITA No. 1087/Del/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 being ITA No. 1088/Del/2015 are a…

ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Tamilnadu Sugar Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2055/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…ut ascertaining as to whether the investments made by the assessee are in its subsidiary and for commercial expediency, by relying on various case law including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 372 ITR 694, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. 5. In this case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that the investments were made mainly with the subsidiary company of the assessee and thus, no disallowance should be made by invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D in view…