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 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

Bhartiya International Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2109/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 156

…Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. 11.2 In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, no further disallowance under Section 14A is called for in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) and Pr.CIT I.T.A. No.2109/Del/2022 12 vs. Caraf Builders and Constructions P. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del) (SLP dismissed by SC). It is well settled law that disallowance under Section 14A can be made only in respect of those investments which have yielded tax free income during the year as held in Caraf Builders (supra) and ACB India Lt…

M/S. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 755/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G Manoj Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 19. After careful reading of the aforesaid order, we find that the ld.Bench was also pleased to relay upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT in 372 ITR 694 holding revised claim of deduction u/s 80IA(iv) of the Act could be filed at any stage, thus, we do not find any reason for the ld.CIT(A) not accepting the claim. 20. We have further analysed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Micro Instruments Company (supra), while dealing with the issue of no…

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3728/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 15JSection 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Vs. UFO Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 PAN : AABCV8900E UFO Moviez India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 PAN : AABCV8900E (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) Appellant by : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, AR Revenue by : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13.09.2023 Date of Pro…

Ufo Moviez India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-27(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1942/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 15JSection 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Vs. UFO Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 PAN : AABCV8900E UFO Moviez India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 PAN : AABCV8900E (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) Appellant by : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, AR Revenue by : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13.09.2023 Date of Pro…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7433/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

…ance of Rs. 37,56,650/- made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and added it to the total income of the assessee. 25. On appeal, following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 694 the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 45,49,293/- i.e. to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The assessee is aggrieved by the excess disallowance of Rs. 7,92,643/- (Rs. 45,49,293 - Rs.37,56,650/-) and is in appeal before the Tribunal. 26. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused…

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7273/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

…ance of Rs. 37,56,650/- made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and added it to the total income of the assessee. 25. On appeal, following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 694 the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 45,49,293/- i.e. to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The assessee is aggrieved by the excess disallowance of Rs. 7,92,643/- (Rs. 45,49,293 - Rs.37,56,650/-) and is in appeal before the Tribunal. 26. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 2175/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

…ance of Rs. 37,56,650/- made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and added it to the total income of the assessee. 25. On appeal, following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 694 the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 45,49,293/- i.e. to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The assessee is aggrieved by the excess disallowance of Rs. 7,92,643/- (Rs. 45,49,293 - Rs.37,56,650/-) and is in appeal before the Tribunal. 26. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused…

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 2162/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

…ance of Rs. 37,56,650/- made by the assessee, the Ld. AO made disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and added it to the total income of the assessee. 25. On appeal, following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 694 the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 45,49,293/- i.e. to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The assessee is aggrieved by the excess disallowance of Rs. 7,92,643/- (Rs. 45,49,293 - Rs.37,56,650/-) and is in appeal before the Tribunal. 26. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused…

JCIT(OSD)Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Anna Investments Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 595/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he assessee, where, the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned for the impugned assessment year by following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Delhi HC). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. M/s.Anna Investments (P) Ltd. :: 3 :: 4. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld.DR and perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Ld.DR, Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, submitted that although, the…

Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7112/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ssue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) and the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investments reported in 372 ITR 694(Del). It is not in dispute that there was no exempt income derived by the assessee during the year under consideration. The ld. DR before us vehemently relied on the amendment brought in Section 14A of the Act by the Finance Act 2022 and argued that the same need to be construed as retrospective in operation as according to him, it was merely cla…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6985/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ssue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 (SC) and the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investments reported in 372 ITR 694(Del). It is not in dispute that there was no exempt income derived by the assessee during the year under consideration. The ld. DR before us vehemently relied on the amendment brought in Section 14A of the Act by the Finance Act 2022 and argued that the same need to be construed as retrospective in operation as according to him, it was merely cla…

Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Add. CIT, Range-22, New Delhi

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

ITA 3307/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ncome is only Rs.5,56,500/-. Hence, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed Rs.5,56,500/-. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi). We are conscious of the fact that by this process, the assessed income might go below the returned income as assessee would be entitled for additional relief of Rs.51,42,250/-(R.56,98,750 – Rs.5,56,500) u/s 14A of the Act. It is trite law that there is no estoppel against the statute. 8. The Ld. DR before us vehemently relied upon th…

JCIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi vs. Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 1974/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ncome is only Rs.5,56,500/-. Hence, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed Rs.5,56,500/-. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] reported in 372 ITR 694 (Delhi). We are conscious of the fact that by this process, the assessed income might go below the returned income as assessee would be entitled for additional relief of Rs.51,42,250/-(R.56,98,750 – Rs.5,56,500) u/s 14A of the Act. It is trite law that there is no estoppel against the statute. 8. The Ld. DR before us vehemently relied upon th…

Income Tax Officer 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Satguru Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 878/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 69

…ubmitted that firstly in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 held that the disallowance u/s 14A disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the of the Act cannot exceed the exempted income and therefore, no further disallowance is exempted income and therefore, no further disallowance is exempted inc…

Satguru Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 483/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 69

…ubmitted that firstly in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 held that the disallowance u/s 14A disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the of the Act cannot exceed the exempted income and therefore, no further disallowance is exempted income and therefore, no further disallowance is exempted inc…

Bmg Enterprises Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 51/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmabmg Enterprises Ltd, Vs. Acit, First Floor, Dcm Building, Circle-5(1), 16, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb4657R

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Girish Kohli, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 143Section 14ASection 250

…A of the Act; b. not limiting the disallowances u/s 14A to the total exempt income earned of Rs. 1,03,155/- (dividend u/s 10(35)) by the assessee following the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court decision in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. [(2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi)] 5. That each ground is independent of and without prejudice to the other grounds raised herein.” 3. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessee had earned dividend income of Rs. 1,03,155/- in respect of investment made in mutual fund. This was claimed as exempt income in the…

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…ettled position of law that disallowance cannot exceed the amount of dividend income earned during the relevant assessment year. In this context, the following judicial pronouncements support the stand of the assessee:- (i) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (59 Taxmann.com 295) – it was held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is to be restricted to the tax exempt income. (ii) Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2015-ITRV-ITAT- MUM-123) – has held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income. (iii) M/s.Pinnacle Brocom Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No.6247/M/2012) – has held that disallow…

United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

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

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…ettled position of law that disallowance cannot exceed the amount of dividend income earned during the relevant assessment year. In this context, the following judicial pronouncements support the stand of the assessee:- (i) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (59 Taxmann.com 295) – it was held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is to be restricted to the tax exempt income. (ii) Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2015-ITRV-ITAT- MUM-123) – has held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income. (iii) M/s.Pinnacle Brocom Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No.6247/M/2012) – has held that disallow…

Yash Movers (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 68

…sions wherein it was held that the disallowance of expenses has to be restricted to the amount of exempt income received by the assessee. The case of the assessee finds support from the various judicial decisions: i) Joint Investment pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del) ii) PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 122(Del) iii) PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala [2017] 393 ITR 476 (Punjab & Hariyana) We note that the assessee has earned tax free income of Rs. 1,53,600/- and therefore the disallowance cannot exceed the said amount of exempt income. Accordingly we set aside the order o…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3 New Delhi vs. M/S Rswm Ltd

The appeal is disposed of as no substantial question of

ITA - 424 / 2023HC Delhi03 Aug 2023
Section 14A

…by the respondent/assessee by way of exempt income. The Tribunal has sustained this view. 10. Even according to Mr Abhishek Maratha, this issue is covered by the judgment of the coordinate bench rendered in Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del.). 11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 12. The Registry will dispatch a copy of the order passed today to the respondent/assessee, at the address given in the memo of parties and/or via email as well. ITA 424/2023 page 2 of 3 This is a digita…