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 366,470 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

M/S Bharat Marketing & Advertising Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 5003/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2011-12 Bharat Marketing & Advertising Ito, Ward- 2(4), Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Vs. 391, 2Nd Floor, Zakir Nagar, Delhi. Pan : Aaacb 0049 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr.DR

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

…t claimed as exempt by assessee in its computation of income and, therefore, no disallowance can be made. Alternately, ld. counsel submitted that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), the disallowance cannot exceed the dividend income received by the assessee. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. The submissions of ld. counsel that since it did not claim its income as exempt in its computation of income, section 5 14A is not applicable, is devoid of…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd

The appeal is allowed reversing

ITA/852/2016HC Delhi18 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 14A

…is allowed reversing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and disallowance of Rs.16,24,198/- is directed to be deleted.” This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the ruling in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) followed by the ITAT, no question of law arises; the appeals are accordingly dismissed, along with pending applications. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NAJMI WAZIRI, J JANUARY 18, 2017 /vikas/ ITA 851 & 852/2016 Page 2 of 2…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. India Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 6574/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cir.6(1), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. India Fashions Ltd., A2/369 Shah & Nahar Indl.Estate, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai 400 013 Pan:Aabci 4292A .... Respondent C.No.68/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6574/Mum/2014, Assessment Year - 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Kardam

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…ula contained in Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules; in this context, the only plea of raised by the Ld. Representative for the assessee is to the effect that the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 9 (2015) 372 ITR 694(Del), prescribes that the disallowance can only be to the extent of the tax exempt income. Following the ratio of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of expenditure to the extent of the exempt income and delete the balance. Thus, assessee succ…

DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Nrc Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4125/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd)-2(3), Nrc Ltd. R. No.577, State Bank Of India, Central बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Office, Accounts & Vs. M.K. Road, Compliance Dept. 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400020 Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacn1616J

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3(1)(o)

…man 761 (Del.) and Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC) and another decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT (2011) 203 taxman 364 (Del.). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited reported in 372 ITR 694 (Del.), 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 prop…

M/S. Spectra Punj Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly

ITA 625/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Spectra Punj Finance Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 17-18, Nehru Place, New Tax, Circle-9(1), New Delhi Delhi. Pan : Aaacs3351H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rajat Jain & Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.12.2016 Order

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Spectra Punj Finance Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ltd., 17-18, Nehru Place, New Tax, Circle-9(1), New Delhi Delhi. PAN : AAACS3351H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajat Jain & Sh. Akshat Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR Date of hearing 29.09.2016 Date of pronouncement 02.12.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI…

Crawford Plantation Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1538/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e legislature never intended to disallow the expenditure which is more than the exempt income derived by the assessee. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2015) 372 ITR 694 wherein it has been held that the 3 Crawford Plantation Pvt. Ltd, AY 2012-13 disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Respectfully following the said decision, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act to Rs.102/- and allow the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 3. In the result, the appeal…

ACIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maxima Agrotrade P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3515/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-14(2)(1), M/S Maxima Agrotrade 432, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Capri Building Vs. M.K. Road, Anant, Kanekar Marg, Mumbai-400020 Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafcm0945G

Section 14Section 14A

…y the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, We find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the various High Courts. 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 4 M/s Maxima Agrotrade Pvt Ltd. the tax…

M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 6165/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Deputy M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., 204, Commissioner Of Rohit House, 3, Tolstoy Marg, Income Tax, Circle-14(1), New New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaacp0182F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 23/09/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds: “1.0 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.4.45.076/- U/S.40A(3Ijof The Income-Tax Act, On Wholly Untenable Grounds. 1.1 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Circumstances Under Which The Cash Payment Exceeding The Prescribed Limit U/S.40A(3) Had To Be Made By The Assessee, Although The Payees Were Fully Identified & Even Tds Has Been Made. 1.2 That The Disallowance Made U/S.40A(3) Is Bad In Law.

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…Cheminvestment (supra) has been overruled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, reported in 378 ITR 33 . He further submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. 12 AY: 2009-10 Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 372 ITR 694, held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the amount of dividend income only, which is Rs. 2000/- in the case of the assessee and, therefore, the balance amount of disallowance might be deleted in the case of the assessee. 5.3 The learned Senior Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the findi…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Eih Associated Hotels Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas that of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 662/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 622/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT

Section 10(35)

…expressing dissatisfaction, over the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer could not had invoked Section 14A. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 372 ITR 694. Further as per ld. Authorised Representative disallowance of any thing more than the exempt income was against law. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Question whether investments in subsidiary company was to be excluded or not for the purpose of ITA Nos.622 & 662/2016. :- 7 -: workin…

Eih Associated Hotels Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas that of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 622/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 622/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT

Section 10(35)

Mirah Hospitality & Food Solutons P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai

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

ITA 7001/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR

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

…income ie to say disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income. For this proposition, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on various precenets. viz (i) judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P Ltd vs. CIT (372 ITR 694) (Delhi HC); (ii) decision of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Global chemical P Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No.5592/M/2012 and (iii) another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Diligent Investment Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No.222/Mum/2012. Ld Counsel for the assessee also brought our attention to the working of the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and menti…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rooftop Infra Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3481/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Rooftop Infra Projects Pvt. Tax-14(3)(1), Ltd., Room No.455, 4Th Floor, 1St Floor, Capri Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Anant Kanekar Marg, Maharshi Karve Road, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aadcr6244H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B.S. Bist, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, D.R

Section 14Section 14A

…heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. We find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the various High Courts. 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 o…

DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Neeraj Consultants Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 316/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan,J.M. & Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M.)

For Appellant: Sri Manoj Kataruka. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR

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

…ITA No.316/Kol/2014- M/s. Neeraj Consultants Ltd. A.Y.2006-07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA (Before Shri N. V. Vasudevan,J.M. & Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M.) ITA No.316/Kol/2014 : Asstt. Year :2006-07 Vs M/s. Neeraj Consultants DCIT ,Circle-10, Ltd. Hudco Niwas,15N, Kolkata. Neli Sengupta, Sarani, Lindesay street, Kolkata-700087. PAN: AABCN1000D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by :Sri Manoj Kataruka. Advocate Revenue by : Sri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 22.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 19-10-2016 ORDER Per Shri N. V. Vasudevan, J.M. This is an ap…

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

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1144/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 6(1) Vs. Mercantile Capital & Financial New Delhi Services P.Ltd. G 71, Ground Floor World Trade Centre Barakhamba Road New Delhi 110 001 Pan: Aaacd 9678 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R Respondent By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2010-11 DCIT, Circle 6(1) vs. Mercantile Capital & Financial New Delhi Services P.Ltd. G 71, Ground floor World Trade Centre Barakhamba road New Delhi 110 001 PAN: AAACD 9678 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R Respondent by : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) –IX…

The Laxmi Salt Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2434/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri N. Acharya Baduri, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Das, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…uch rejection must be for disclosed cogent reasons and it is only then that the question of determination of such expenditure by the AO would arise. For this proposition he also placed reliance on the decisions reported in 347 ITR 272 (Del), 361 ITR 131(P&H), 372 ITR 694(Del), 376 ITR 390(Del), AND 378 ITR 240 (Del). 5 The Laxmi Salt Co. Ltd. AY 2009-10 10. In COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, CALCUTTA Versus ASHISH JHUNJHUNWALA G.A. No. 2990 of 2013, wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta confirmed the following observations of this Tribunal in ITA No 1809/Kol/2012: “While rejecting th…

Ansh Merchandise P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 411/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.411/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-08) Ansh Merchandise Private Dcit – 5(2), बनाम/ Limited, 11, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, V. 84, Appollo House, Mumbai – 400 020. Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcn8176E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 143(3)

…unal in the case of Sylvex Cables Company Private Limited v. DCIT in ITA no 8581/Mum/2011 as well on decision of Pr. CIT v. Empire Packaging Private Limited and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694(Del HC) to contend that the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the dividend income earned by the assessee. The ld DR relied upon the orders of learned CIT(A). 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record including case laws relied upon, we have observed that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.…

Ansh Merchandise P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 398/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 143(3)

Phenil Sugars Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 781/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.993/Mum./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/s. Phenil Sugars Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT (A) – 19, 2nd Floor, Building No.2, Mumbai. Solitaire Corporate Park, 167, Guru Hargovind Marg, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai – 400 069. (PAN : AADCP0153H) ITA No.781/Del./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/s. Phenil Sugars Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO, Ward 14 (4), 207, Essel House, New Delhi. 10, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110 002. (PAN : AADCP0153H) (APPELLANT) (RES…

Netmagic Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5160/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5160/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनधम/ Netmagic Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Bldg. No.22, Nirlon Complex, Tax –Circle 9(2), Vs. Western Express Highway, Mumbai. Goregaon, Mumbai-400063

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…nt qua not recording the satisfaction. The ld. Counsel 3 5160/Mum/2013 vehemently submitted that the case of the assessee is fully covered by the various decisions as under : a) CIT V/s Taikisha Engineering (370 ITR 338) (Del); b) CIT V/s Joint Investments (372 ITR 694) (Del); c) Maxopp Investments Ltd V/s CIT (347 ITR 272); d) Kalyani Steels Ltd V/s Addl.CIT (ITA No.1733/PN/2012); e) 3DPM slftware Solutions Ltd V/s ITO (ITA No.5736/Mum/2012) The ld. Counsel submitted that the additions as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) was totally wrong as the mandatory requirement of recording satisfaction has…

Ms. Jyoti Kapur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 369/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Akash Chug, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 147Section 14ASection 154

…. In support, reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents : (i). M/s. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. vs. CIT, 54 taxmann.com 109(Delhi). (ii). Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, 15 Taxmann.com 390 (Delhi). (iii). Joint Investments (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 59 Taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) (iv). Kalyani Steel Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1733/PN/2012-ITAT Pune) 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer was satisfied as to the disallowance u/s. 14A and has recorded satisfaction as required by the said section which is clear from para 6 of th…