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.

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 694)

Sakthi Finance Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 45/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 45/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Sakthi Finance Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 62, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 018. Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadcs0656G] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Asish Tripathi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2017 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) 1, Coimbatore Dated 26.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax At, 1961 [“Act” In Short] R.W. Rule 8D. The Second & Third Grounds Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal Have 2

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “सी” "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 45/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. Sakthi Finance Limited, The Deputy Commissioner of 62, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 018. Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore. [PAN: AADCS0656G] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respon…

Karmen International P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1535/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCIT

Section 14A

…eyond that and accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. 4.1 In similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 372 ITR 694, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and the head-notes are as under: “Income-Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income-Disallowance-Assessee was engaged in diverse investment activities and in the course of its business derived income from rent, sale of investments, dividend and interest-For AY 2009- 10, a…

Karmen International P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1279/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCIT

Section 14A

…eyond that and accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. 4.1 In similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 372 ITR 694, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and the head-notes are as under: “Income-Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income-Disallowance-Assessee was engaged in diverse investment activities and in the course of its business derived income from rent, sale of investments, dividend and interest-For AY 2009- 10, a…

Morgan Stanley Investment Management P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5195/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Morgan Stanley Investment Dy. Commissioner Of Management Private Limited Income Tax – 1(2) 18F/19F, Tower-2, One Indiabulls Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Centre, 841 Senapati Bapt Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Pan No.Aaacm4066F Appellant .. Respondent .. S/Shri Sunil M Lala, Assessee By Rahul Jain & Rahul Vora, Ars’ Revenue By .. Shri Suman Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 18-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 20-09-2017

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the other propositions, that assessee’s dividend from investment in mutual funds is at Rs. 3,88,420/- and disallowance to this extent can be restricted in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del). 6. The fourth proposition argued by the learned Counsel for the assessee is as regards to the Principal of consistency. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the relevant assessment year is 2009-10 and he drew our attention to the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31-03-2009 and referred to Schedule D, wherein investments as…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ennore Tank Terminals Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1047/CHNY/2017[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1047/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Ennore Tank Terminals Pvt. Ltd., “Neeladri”, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle 2(1), No.9, Cenotaph Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 018. Pan : Aabce 3918 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Asish Tripathy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, CA

Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1047/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Ennore Tank Terminals Pvt. Ltd., “Neeladri”, 3rd floor, Income Tax, v. Corporate Circle 2(1), No.9, Cenotaph Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 018. PAN : AABCE 3918 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Asis…

Pn Nj Industries P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 10(3)(Old) DCIT Cir 15(2)(2) (New), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2324/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Pn Nj Industries Pvt. Acit, Circle-10(3) (Old) Ltd. Dcit, Circle-15(2)(2) Vs. Plot No. A-470, Ttc (New) Industries Area, Midc, 4Th Floor, Mahape, P.O. Ghansoi, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Navi Mumbai-400701 Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaccs1519B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Govind Javeri, Ar Revenue By: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Govind Javeri, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Kamvan Construction P. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 3084/Mum/2013) and Essar Properties Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 423/Mum/2015). Also the Ld. counsel referred to the decision in (i) Joint Investments vs. CIT [372 ITR 694 (Del), (ii) ACIT vs. Tapi Energy Projects Ltd. being ITA No. 56/Mum/2014 dated 29.07.2016, (iii) Indus Valley Investment vs. DCIT being ITA No. 3763/Del/2013 for AY 2009-10 dated 29.04.2015, (iv) M/s Daga Global Chemicals vs. ACIT being ITA No. 5592/Mum/2012 dated 01.01.2015, (v) M/s Slyvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT being ITA No. 8581/Mum/2011…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6840/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 14A

…n the following judgments: - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC) - Pr. CIT v. U.K. Paints 392 ITR 552 (Del) 6840/Del./2014 4 - CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338 (Del) - Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del) 4. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of assessment 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by holding as under: “6.5 I find that before applying the provisions of Rule 8D, the Ld. AO did not give credence to the appellant's working of disallowance only on the…

DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2041/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Aug 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2041/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-10 Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 3739 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Gupta, AR

Section 143(3)

…eported in (2017) 82 taxmann.com 254 (Mumbai Trib.) dated 1.1.2015 had held that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in ( 2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) had approved this view. Accordingly we direct the ld AO to 10 M/s Reliance Chemotex Industries A.Yr.2011-12 disallow only a sum of Rs 1,486/- u/s 14A of the Act in the year under appeal. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the revenue is partly allowed. 5. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was jus…

Rel Utility Engimeers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7177/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Crest Logistics & Addl. Cit-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. Cit (Erstwhile Rel Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, As Rel Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly Known As Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Crest Logistic & Tax-14(1)(2), Engineering Ltd., Room No.470, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sonata Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 307, Charted House, Mumbai - 400020 297/299, Dr. Cawasji Hormosji Street, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth, D.R

…ide order dated 24.03.2014 and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. M/s. Delite Enterprises” in ITA No.110 of 2009 vide order dated 26.02.09. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited reported in 372 ITR 694 has held that section 14 of the Act or rule 8D cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income of the assessee is to be disallowed. That 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. This proportion…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Sonata Investments Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6931/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Crest Logistics & Addl. Cit-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. Cit (Erstwhile Rel Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, As Rel Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly Known As Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Crest Logistic & Tax-14(1)(2), Engineering Ltd., Room No.470, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sonata Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 307, Charted House, Mumbai - 400020 297/299, Dr. Cawasji Hormosji Street, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth, D.R

…ide order dated 24.03.2014 and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. M/s. Delite Enterprises” in ITA No.110 of 2009 vide order dated 26.02.09. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited reported in 372 ITR 694 has held that section 14 of the Act or rule 8D cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income of the assessee is to be disallowed. That 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. This proportion…

M/S. Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2847/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2846 & 2847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 10(33)Section 14A

…claimed. Further, according to him, any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act could not exceed the quantum of exempt income claimed. For this argument reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd vs. CIT 372 ITR 694. 3. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order for assessment year 2011-2012 had mentioned that assessee had earned dividend income ITA Nos.2846 & 2847/Mds/16 :- 3 -: of "5,55,08,071/-. For assessment year 2012-13, as per ld. Departmental Representative assessee had claimed ex…

M/S. Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2846/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2846 & 2847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 10(33)Section 14A

…claimed. Further, according to him, any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act could not exceed the quantum of exempt income claimed. For this argument reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd vs. CIT 372 ITR 694. 3. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order for assessment year 2011-2012 had mentioned that assessee had earned dividend income ITA Nos.2846 & 2847/Mds/16 :- 3 -: of "5,55,08,071/-. For assessment year 2012-13, as per ld. Departmental Representative assessee had claimed ex…

M/S. Mercantile Capital & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground NO. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed directing the ld Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs

ITA 4735/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishimercantile Capital & Financial Vs. Addl. Cit, Services Pvt. Ltd, Range-6, New Delhi G-71, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi Pan:Aaacm5551D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mercantile Capital and Financial Vs. Addl. CIT, Services Pvt. Ltd, Range-6, New Delhi G-71, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi PAN:AAACM5551D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sailesh Gupta, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 31/05/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi dated 24.06.2014 dismissing…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moderate Leasing & Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is demised

ITA 4706/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Moderate Leasing & Capital Vs. Ward-5(4), Services Ltd, New Delhi 415, Modi Towers, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaacm6945K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Premjit S Kashyap, CAFor Respondent: Sh. HK Choudhury, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…wance under Rule 8D and restricted the disallowance to Rs. 264/- only. No infirmity was pointed out before us in the computation confirmed by the ld first appellate authority. However, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot swallow the entire amount as it has happened in this case as per assessment order. Therefore, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court we are of the opinion that as the exempt income itself is Rs. 1700/- only the disallowance cannot exceed that sum. Hence, no further disallowance can be mad…

DCIT, Central Cir. VI, Kolkata vs. M/S J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 611/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…held by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal that without recording satisfaction, no disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D can be made. In this connection, Ld. AR also drawn to a decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dt. 25.2.2015 reported in (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.) in which also it has been very clearly held that without recording satisfaction there could be no question of disallowance U/S 14A read with Rule 8D. The decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is reported in 372 ITR 694 (Del). The ld. AR also submitted that no disallowance u/s 14A could be made without recording of satisfaction, and where ow…