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

J.K. Helene Curtis Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5534/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5534/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) J K Helene Curtis Limited, बनाम/ Dy. Commissionr Of Income Tax Pokhran Road No.1, 2(2), Vs. Jekegram, Mumbai. Thane-400606 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri U S Amin(Dy.Manager

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…pellant of Rs.77,240/-. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the disallowance cannot be more than the exempt income of Rs 4,40,3421- in view of the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Joint Investments P Ltd V Is CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (2015). I find merit in the argument of the appellant. Hence, the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii)(iii) is restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the appellant during the year under consideration at Rs 4,40,342/-. However, since the appellant has already disallowed an amount of Rs 77,2401 -, the balance amount of Rs.3,63,102/-is…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Tapi Energy Projects Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 56/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.56/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Acit-4(3), M/S. Tapi Energy Projects बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 26, Gobind Mahal, 86-B, Netaji Subhash Road, Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact 5757C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri R.K. Sahu ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala

For Appellant: Shri R.K. SahuFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala

Section 14A

…refore there is no justification at all in disallowing Rs. 93,43,457/-. He further submits that the disallowance should not exceed the dividend income earned and for this proposition he places reliance on the following decisions: 1) Joint Investments VS CIT [372 ITR 694(Del] 2) Indus Valley Investments Vs DCIT being ITA No. 3763/Del/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 dated 29.4.2015 (copy enclosed. 3) M/s. Daga Global Chemicals Vs ACIT being ITA No. 592/M/2012 dated 1.1.2015 (copy enclosed) 4) M/s. Slyvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT being ITA No. 8581/M/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 dated 24.2.2016 (copy enclosed) 5) M/s. Global Cap…

Dcm Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the additional ground of the assessee is allowed and ground

ITA 1511/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantdcit Vs Dcm Ltd. Circle 10(1) 6Th Floor, Vikrant Tower, New Delhi. Rajendra Place, New Delhi. Aaacd1012E & Dcm Ltd. Vs Dcit 6Th Floor, Vikrant Tower, Circle 10(1) Rajendra Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aaacd1012E Assessee By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Dr Revenue By Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Ca

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…ount only notwithstanding the fact that the company had made suo moto disallowance of Rs. 21.87 lacs. The Ld. AR relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Limited 272 CTR 282 (Del.), Joint Investment P. Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 for the proposition. ITA No. 1237 & 1511/D/14 Page 7 of 15 On ground no. 1 of the Department’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of Rs. 22.32 lacs on account of notional interest on interest free advances to DCM Employees Trust, the Ld. AR submitted that the same is covered in favour of the ass…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dcm Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the additional ground of the assessee is allowed and ground

ITA 1237/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…e as business expenditure u/s 36(1) (iii) of the Act. In the context of disallowance under the provisions of section 14A, the Ld. AR relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Joint Investment Private Limited vs.CIT’ reported in 372 ITR 694 and of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of ‘PCIT vs. Empire Package Pvt. Ltd.’ [ITA No. 415 of 2015 date of decision 12.01.2016] has contended that disallowance u/s 14 A cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year. He has further submitted that the law declared by the High Court of the other State, in the absence of…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.423/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Essar Properties Ltd, फनाभ/ Dcit-5(1), Essar House, 11 Keshavrao, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Khadya Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 034. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcp9640D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta / Anuj Kisnadwala प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri K. Ravikiran, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta / AnujFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravikiran, Sr. AR

Section 14A

…tual matrix should not exceed the foresaid exempt income of Rs. 1,32,433/-. In support of his argument, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on various decisions viz (i) judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (372 ITR 694); (ii) decisions of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Indus Valley Investments & Finance P Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.3763/Del/2013, dated 29.4.2015 and in the case of DCM Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.4467/Del/2012, dated 1.9.2015; (iii) decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Aarti Steel Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.268/Chd/2015, dated 30.11.2015; (iv…

Shreyas R. Metha, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4495/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ajay C. GosaliaFor Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan-DR

Section 10Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4495/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shreyas R. Mehta Income tax Officer-8(2)(4) Room No.213, 2nd Floor, C/o., Rasiklal Harilal & Co., 205, Sheikh Vs. Memon…

Positive Comsol Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6597/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2009-10 Positive Comsol P.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 14(3) 701, Arunachal Bldg. New Delhi 19, Barakhamba Road, C.P. New Delhi 110 001 Pan: Aabck 4672 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Akshat Jain & Sh.Rajat Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. D.R

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2009-10 Positive Comsol P.Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 14(3) 701, Arunachal Bldg. New Delhi 19, Barakhamba road, C.P. New Delhi 110 001 PAN: AABCK 4672 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh.Akshat Jain & Sh.Rajat Jain, CAs. Respondent by : Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVII, New Delhi dated 24.10.2013 pertain…

M/S Mayur Knits Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 14A

…the point at issue is fully covered in assessee’s favour by the said order. Relying on the said decision it was submitted that the ITAT had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.) which is relied upon in the present proceedings also. Inviting attention to the facts on record as found addressed in Page 1 para 3 of the assessment order which are reiterated in para 3 of the order under challenge it was his submission that the assessee had earned dividend income of Rs.5,300/-, the said income was not claimed as an exe…

Baba Global Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly we direct the AO to restrict the addition to the exempt income. Accordingly this ground is partly allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1086/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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…

M/S. Amar Packaging Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2358/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…xempt income of Rs.7,01,194/- whereas the AO has computed the disallowance at Rs.71,44,183/- which exceeds exempt income. This issue has been dealt with by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in judgment cited as Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.). 10. The operative part of the judgment in case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is reproduced for ready reference as under :- “Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 80 - assessee volunteered – Rs.2,97,440/- as attributable under Section 14A for the purpose of disallowance - AO on the basis of his own understanding of Rule 8…

M/S. Hotz Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (OSD), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 876/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Ramka, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…e. Thus, on the sole ground, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not maintainable. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT v Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338(Del.); ii) Joint Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT - 233 Taxmann 117 (Del.); & iii) Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT - 347 ITR 272 (Del.); 5. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand tried to justify the first appellate order on the issue. He submitted that it appears from the very 20 assessment order that the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the working of disallowance of expenses under sec. 14A read w…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…Page 1 of 134 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I. C.SUDHIR JudicialMember AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, Accountant Member A.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs ACIT 12th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACR0127N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Date of pronouncement 25/04/2016 Assessee by: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.and Ms. Deepanvee Rao,Adv. on corporate tax issues 2. Sh. Rahul Mitra, C.A. with Sh. Derendra Gulari, C.A and Sh. Vinay Verma, C.A. on transfer pricing issues Revenue by: Shri Amrendra Kumar…

M/S Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - Xvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1560/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar ACAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.DR

Section 14A

…purchasing the shares, has deleted the disallowance. On this ground itself, the deletion as made by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be confirmed and we do so”. (c ) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi), wherein it was held that : “9. In the present case, the AO has not firstly disclosed why the appellant/assessee’s claim for attributing `2,97,440/- as a disallowance under Section 14A had to be rejected. Taikisha says that the jurisdiction to proceed further and determine amounts is derived after examination of the accounts and rejection…

M/S. Amar Packagings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6291/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…,13,77,730/- which is 647% of the exempt income, which cannot be the interpretation for computing disallowance as per section 14A or Rule 8D as held recently by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.) wherein it has been held “By no stretch of imagination, can section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure “incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income”. This…

The Investment Trust of India Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1349/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…We are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has to consider the expenditure pertaining to exempted income only for disallowance and such expenditure should be restricted to exempted income earned as held in the case of M/s.Joint Investment P. Ltd vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del). Therefore, we set aside the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remit the issue to the file of Assessing Officer to recalculate the disallowance under Rule 8D considering the expenditure having direct nexus with exempted income only. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Or…

D.C.I.T.CC - Xxviii, Kol., Kolkata vs. M/S Binani Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 144/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/ Shri K.V. Beswal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld.DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Unifi Capital Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1810/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1810 & 1811/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2010-2011. Unifi Capital Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Unifi Wealth Income Tax Management Pvt. Ltd) Company Circle Iii(2) 11, Kakani Towers, Chennai. 15, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai 600 006 [Pan Aaacu 5196J ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Vijaykumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCIT

Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…he ld. Assessing Officer calculated disallowance under Rule 8D "2,57,857/- which is at higher side on comparison with income received and prayed deletion. We after considering the apparent facts and judicial decision of M/s.Joint Investments P. Ltd vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) were held that disallowance should be restricted to the extent of exempted income. Therefore, we set aside order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this ground and remit the issue in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall verify and examine the disallowance on the ratio of judicial decision. In respect of…

Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2490/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiindian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd., Ito, C. Block, 2Nd Floor, Ward-11(4), Vs. Ansal Plaza, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaci1163M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito, Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd., C. Block, 2Nd Floor, Ward-11(4), Vs. New Delhi Ansal Plaza, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi Pan:Aaaci1163M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trajanthan, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…is in appeal and on deletion of the balance disallowance revenue is in appeal. As we have already held in while deciding appeal of the assessee relying on the decision of Honourable Jurisdictional High court in case of Joint Investments Private Limited V CIT [372 ITR 694] that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Accordingly we confirm the order of CIT (A) accordingly and held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income as per finding given in Ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee. Hence ground no 2 of the appeal is dismissed. 15. Ground No.3 of the revenue is regarding deletion…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Bhoruka Park Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 114/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA

Section 14A

…amine the claim of the Assessee under sec 14A and should give a reasoned order why the claim of the Assessee cannot be accepted and then only proceed to compute the disallowance u/s 14A. 9. The Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P Ltd v CIT (372 ITR 694) has held that Section 14A or rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the entire exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance was indicated in section 14A and was only to the extent of disallowing expenditure “incurred & CO No.144/Bang/2015 Page 5 of 13 by the assessee in relation to the…