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 367,154 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 Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Tamilnadu Sugar Corporation Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2054/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

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…

Anand Rathi Capital Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7543/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7543, 7544, 7515 & 7546/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Capital Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Advisors P. Ltd, 47A, 3Rd R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Floor, Plot No. 308 Air India Building, Vs. Hanuman Bldg, Perin Nariman Point, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacr2791N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…e under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D cannot be more than the exempt income itself. The ld. A.R in order to drive home his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax Vs. Empire Package Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 286 CTR 0457 (P&H). We are not oblivious of the fact that such a proposition was not advanced by the assessee before the lower authorities, but then, keeping in view the ITA Nos. 7543-7544/Mum/2016,…

Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7527 & 7526/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Global Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Finance Ltd., 4Th Floor, R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Silver Metropolis Bldg., Air India Building, Vs. Western Express Highway, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabcr1136N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 153A

…e under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D cannot be more than the exempt income itself. The ld. A.R in order to drive home his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Empire Package Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 286 CTR 0457 (P&H). P a g e | 19 ITA Nos. 7514,7526,7527,7543,7544,7546 & 7469 to 7474/Mum/2016 M/s Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd., Vs. DCIT Cen. Cir.-5(1) We are not oblivious of the fact that the…

Investmentor Securities Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2141/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Marmik Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…only. The same factual position continues herein as well. Learned Authorized Representative states very fairly that the impugned disallowance ought not to have exceeded the entire exempt income amount (supra) as per hon’ble Delhi high court’s judgment (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT . Mr. Kabra on the other hand strongly supports both the lower authorities’ action invoking the impugned disallowance. He however fails to rebut the above legal proposition as per hon’ble Delhi high court’s recent decision. We therefore partly accept assessee’s grievance to restrict the impugned disallowa…

Shree Global Tradefin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5542/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shree Global Tradefin Acit-32 Ltd.,35, Ashok Chambers, Ground Floor, Vs. Broach Street, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Devjiretanesy Marg, Road,Mumbai-400020. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacb2975J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dilip Lakhani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T.A. Khan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Dilip Lakhani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T.A. Khan, DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shree Global Tradefin ACIT-32 Ltd.,35, Ashok Chambers, Ground floor, Vs. Broach Street, AayakarBhavan, M.K. DevjiRetanesy Marg, Road,Mumbai-400020. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACB2975J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dilip Lakhani, AR Revenue by : Mr. T.A. Khan, DR Date of Hearing : 11/10/2017 Date of pronouncement : 29/12/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment ye…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Ews Finance & Investments P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2461/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Smt. Ruby George, IRS, CIT

Section 14A

…0,18,135/- for assessment year 2009-2010. 4. When the matter reached the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd vs. CIT, 372 ITR 694 held that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act had to be restricted to the exempt income claimed by the assessee, for the respective assessment years. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative strongly assailing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that Circular No.5/2014, dated 11.02.2014 of CBDT, enabled the Assessing Office…

Kesari Sanjey Kundalia, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1515/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, CIT

Section 14ASection 2Section 40

…ncome claimed as exempt was Rs.2,56,203/- for assessment year 2012-13 and " 1,13,460/- for assessment year 2013-2014. As per the ld. Authorised Representative by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment P. Ltd vs. CIT 372 ITR 694, disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) could not exceed the exempt income claimed. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Regindton (India ) Ltd v. JCIT. (2016) 97 CCH 219. ITA Nos.1515/16 & 1666/17 :- 3 -: Viz-a-viz the grounds assailing the disallowance…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 vs. Bhushan Energy Ltd

ITA/1157/2017HC Delhi19 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 14A

…ut upholding the rejection of the disallowance by the AO offered by the assessee. The ITAT in the impugned judgment granted complete relief to the assessee on the strength of the two judgments of this Court, i.e., Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) and Cheminvest Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 378 ITR 33. This Court is of the opinion that the entire exempt income in the present case was purely incidental, consequent of the deployment of surplus funds for a part of the period. The findings of the CIT (A) clearly point to the fact that the assessee had utilised the entire bor…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 vs. Bhushan Energy Ltd

ITA/1158/2017HC Delhi19 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 14A

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Usha International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Usha International Ltd, Circle-27(1), 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaact0066A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri VP Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80G

…he ld CIT(A), he restricted the same to Rs. 593000/-. 5. The ld DR relied upon the orders of the ld Assessing Officer, whereas, the ld AR relied upon the order of the ld CIT(A) and decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders the orders of the lower authorities. As the assessee has earned exempt income only Rs. 5.93 lacs disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the de…

Rovo Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6038/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 14A

…O u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2 (for short the Act) read with Rules 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (For short the Rules). 3. The Ld. AR submitted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investment Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) disallowance cannot be made more than exempt income earned and claimed as exempt by the assessee which was only 1,51,698/- in the present case. Hence, the disallowance may kindly be restricted to the said amount. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the action of the A.O as well as the First Appellate Order and su…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Bgr Energy System Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 954/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mrs. Jharna B. Harilal, C.A

…orised Representative, assessee claimed exempt income of "2,76,835/- only and disallowance u/s.14A of the Act had to be restricted to such amount. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment P. Ltd vs. CIT 372 ITR 694. ITA Nos.660 & 954/17 :- 14 -: & C.O.65/2017 Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 13. irrespective of the quantum of the exempt income claimed by the assessee disallowance could be made u/s.14A of the Act. Reliance was placed in Circular No.5/2014, dated 11.02.2014. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 1…

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 660/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mrs. Jharna B. Harilal, C.A

ACIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Oasis Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4547/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Oasis Securities Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Bldg.No.5, Of Income Tax-Circle 4(2) Rajabahadur Compound, Mumbai Vs. Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaaco0091J The Deputy Commissioner Oasis Securities Ltd. Of Income Tax 4(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Bldg.No.5, Room No. 642, 6Th Floor, Rajabahadur Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 023 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Prakash K Jotwani, ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…for the assessee stated that the assessee’s exempt income i.e. dividend income is to the tune of ₹ 1,51,348/-. According to him, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), wherein it is held that the window for disallowance was indicated in section 14A of the Act and was only to the extent of disallowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income. This proportion or portion of the exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount. In view of the above Delhi High Court dec…

Oasis Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3323/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Prakash K Jotwani, ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

Ashok Giri, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2060/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2060/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Ashok Giri, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 13, 32Nd Cross Street, Vs. Income Tax, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Corporate Circle 3(2), [Pan: Aacpa4186F] Chennai 34. (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai, Dated 29.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessing Officer Order U/S 154 Of The Act On Debatable Issues.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 234A

…is very cryptic. Otherwise also, against the dividend income of ₹.19,49,256/-, the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of ₹.38,61,193/- cannot be made in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 372 ITR 694. In the absence of 5 I.T.A. No. 2060/M/17 any detailed paper book filed by the assessee, until and unless a detailed order is passed against the determination of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D, it is not possible to arrive whether the issue is debatable issue or not, to pass a rectification order. The ld. CIT(A) has not discussed again…

M/S. Lumax Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6961/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2010-11 Lumax Industries Ltd., Jcit, Range- 4, B-85/86, Mayapuri Industrial New Delhi. Vs. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacl1126D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…not form part of the original return or even the revised return, it could still be considered, if the relevant material was available on record. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 694, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income. He submitted that the assessee during the impugned assessment year has earned 19 dividend income of Rs.1,76,320/-, therefore, the disallowance u/s 14A in any case should not exceed beyond Rs.1,76,320/- whereas the asses…

Aha Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 6054/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Aha Holdings Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle- 6(1), (Formerly Known As Idream Aaykar Bhavan, Holding Pvt. Ltd.), M.K. Road, 161, Star City, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Manmala Tank Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai - 400016 Pan: Aafcs6404E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14Section 143Section 14A

…,63,200/-, the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly upheld the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Ld. counsel further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del), Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Empire Package P. Ltd. 286 CTR 457 (P & H) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tecpro System Ltd. vs. Union of India, the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed dividend income. Further, the Ld. Counsel submitted that provisions u/s 14A of the Act do not apply to strategic investments in group/subs…

S.V.Sreenivasen, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly

ITA 892/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.892/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. S.V. Sreenivasen, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.278, Arunachalam Street, Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 002. Coimbatore. [Pan Aiqps 8095P]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.892/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. S.V. Sreenivasen, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.278, Arunachalam Street, Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 002. Coimbatore. [PAN AIQPS 8095P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate "…

Mulchand S. Chheda, Mumbai vs. JCIT 21(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 180/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Shri Mulchand S. Chheda Jcit-21(2), बिधम/ 21, 2Nd Floor, Kalpataru Point Bandra Kurla Complex, Kamani Marg, Sion (East) C-10, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabpc3276F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mrugakshi Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 48

…support from the judgments of the Hon’ble P a g e | 20 ITA No.180/Mum/2015 AY: 2010-11 Shri Mulchand S. Chheda Vs. JCIT-21(2) High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi). We thus further direct the A.O to restrict the disallowances under Sec. 14A to the amount of the dividend income which was earned by the assessee on the shares held by him as investment. We thus restore the issue to the file of the A.O for the purpose of fresh adjudication in terms of our aforesaid observations. 13. The appeal of the ass…