Leena Kasbekar v. ACIT

53 SOT 192Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#4370 most cited

What is Leena Kasbekar v. ACIT authority for?

No disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not incurred any expenditure in relation to earning exempt income, and the revenue fails to pinpoint any such expenditure.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Leena Kasbekar v. ACIT · section 14A · disallowance · exempt income · expenditure · nexus · onus on revenue

Also reported as

166 ITD 440

Sections most often in play

Section 14A of the Income Tax ActSection 1961Section 1962

Issues it is cited on

disallowance under section 14asection 14aprevious yeartransferprescribedsection 14section 143(3)total incomebusinesscompanydocumentindia

Judgments citing Leena Kasbekar v. ACIT

DR. ASHOK SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5144/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2011-12 Dr. Ashok Seth, Acit, Circle 61(1), B-30, Geetanjali Enclave, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aarps1432R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ome Tax Rules, 1962. 10. Ld. AR submitted that no direct and proximate nexus between the exempted income and the expenditure claimed was established. He relied on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. Addl. CIT – (2012) 53 SOT 192 (Mumbai). Ld. AR submitted that the assesee has earned only Rs. 76,660/- as exempted income. Further, the assessee is having personal drawings of Rs. 27,97,024/- which is evident from the capital account of the assessee placed at page 23 of the paper book. The STT charge brokerages have also been paid by the assessee from his personal account. The…

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…the Act.  CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. (323 ITR 518) (P&H HC) (2010)  Yatish Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. vACIT (129 ITD 237) (Mum ITAT) (2011) Page No. 62 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited  Justice Sam P. BharuchavACIT (53 SOT 192) (Mum ITAT) (2012)  Principal Commissioner of Income tax- IL&FS fax -04 v IL & FS Energy Development Co Ltd (84 taxmann.com 186) (Delhi HC) (2017) 2. It is therefore emphasized that our company has not incurred any direct expenditure to earn the dividend income during the captioned assessment year, hence, no disallowance should be made as per the…

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…245265] • CIT v Hero Cycles Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H) [CLC Pg.266-268] • Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Born) [CLC Pg.269-315] • CIT v Deepak Mittal [2014] 361 ITR 131 (P&H) [CLC Pg.319-323] • Justice Sam P. Bharucha v. ACIT (2012) 53 SOT 192 (URO) / 25 taxman.com 381 (Mum.)(Trib.) [CLC Pg.324- 341] • Biocon Research Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) ITA Nos. 1250 & 1251/Bang/2016 (Bang.-Trib) [CLC-III Pg.502-567] 6.6 Sub-section (2) to section 14A permits the assessing officer to determine the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. To determine the expenditure incurred in relation to ex…

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

…Hero Cycles Limited (323 ITR 518) (P&H HC) • Metalman Auto (P.) Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 434 (P&H) • ACIT vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 338 (Mum ITAT) • CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. [2009] 339 ITR 632 (Bom HC) • Sam P Bharucha vs ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum ITAT) 64. In view of the above, it is submitted that since there is no expenditure incurred at all by the assessee in connection with the investment made in the subsidiary company, there should be no disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. C. Only those investments to be considered for computing average value of investment which yield…

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

ITA 373/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…in this order has relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pradeep Khanna vs ACIT in ITA Appeal No.953 of 2015 order dated 11.8.2016 and the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs Addl. CIT, 53 SOT 192. In the case of Justice Sam P. Bharucha (supra), in para 5.1, it has been clearly mentioned that no notional expenditure can be apportioned for the purpose of earning exempt income unless there is an actual expenditure and the income not forming part of total income and in para 5.2, it has also been mentioned that the AO has not given any finding…

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

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

ITA 366/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…in this order has relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pradeep Khanna vs ACIT in ITA Appeal No.953 of 2015 order dated 11.8.2016 and the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs Addl. CIT, 53 SOT 192. In the case of Justice Sam P. Bharucha (supra), in para 5.1, it has been clearly mentioned that no notional expenditure can be apportioned for the purpose of earning exempt income unless there is an actual expenditure and the income not forming part of total income and in para 5.2, it has also been mentioned that the AO has not given any finding…

TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 14A

…rt in the case of Pradeep Khanna vs ACIT in ITA Appeal No.953 of 2015 order dated 11.8.2016 and the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Justice P a g e 8 | 27 ITA No.1 97/CTK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 12- 13 Sam P. Bharucha vs Addl. CIT, 53 SOT 192. In the case of Justice Sam P. Bharucha (supra), in para 5.1, it has been clearly mentioned that no notional expenditure can be apportioned for the purpose of earning exempt income unless there is an actual expenditure and the income not forming part of total income and in para 5.2, it has also been mentioned that the AO has not given any finding…

RAVI MOHAN GEHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cen Cir 40, Ravi Mohan Gehi, Piramal Chambers B/6, Navkar Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Pin- Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aeppg1674M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Pradip Kanasi, Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Michael, Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 29.07.2020 : Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2020 :

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kanasi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Michael, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 57

…o disallowance can be made u/s14A. The said contention of the appellant is supported by the following decisions: 14 I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 Ravi Mohan Gehi a) Priya Exhibitors (P.) Ltd 54 SOT 356 (Delhi-Trib) (2012)[A.Y. 2008-09] b) Justice Sam P. Bharucha, 53 SOT 192 (Mumbai) [A.Y.2008-09] c) Hero Cycles Ltd, 323 ITR 518 (P&H) [A.Y.2004-05] d) Sun Investment Ltd. 8 ITR(Trib)33 (Del.) (2011) [A.Y.2005-06] 2. Failure on part of the A.O. to record satisfaction i. The appellant has not incurred any expenditure in computing dividend income which is claimed exempt from tax and therefore no expenditure was claimed fo…

INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 393/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

…wnship, Rourkela relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pradeep Khanna vs ACIT in ITA Appeal No.953 of 2015 order dated 11.8.2016 and the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs Addl. CIT, 53 SOT 192. In the case of Justice Sam P. Bharucha (supra), in para 5.1, it has been clearly mentioned that no notional expenditure can be apportioned for the purpose of earning exempt income unless there is an actual expenditure and the income not forming part of total income and in para 5.2, it has also been mentioned that the AO has not given any find…

ACIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 389/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

…wnship, Rourkela relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pradeep Khanna vs ACIT in ITA Appeal No.953 of 2015 order dated 11.8.2016 and the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs Addl. CIT, 53 SOT 192. In the case of Justice Sam P. Bharucha (supra), in para 5.1, it has been clearly mentioned that no notional expenditure can be apportioned for the purpose of earning exempt income unless there is an actual expenditure and the income not forming part of total income and in para 5.2, it has also been mentioned that the AO has not given any find…

AJAY INDRAJIT THAKORE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6602/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay I. ThakoreFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald
Section 144ASection 49(1)Section 50ESection 55(2)Section 55(2)(ii)

…ere is no nexus between the expenditure incurred and exempt income earned, no notional disallowance can be made under section 14A r/w rule 8D. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Justice Sam P. Bharucha v/s ACIT, [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum.) (URO); and ii) CIT v/s Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [2013] 351 ITR 359 (Bom.). 12. We have considered rival submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon and perused the material on record. Undisputedly, the assessee is a professional and his main source of income is from carrying out legal profession. From the assessment stage i…

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5390/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 14(1)Section 14ASection 35

…n the absence of a clear finding of incurring of expenditure for earning the exempt income, no disallowance u/s. 14A is called for. Following decisions have been relied on:  Priya Exhibitors (P.) Ltd. 54 SOT 356 (Delhi-Trib)(2012)  Justice Sam P. Bharucha 53 SOT 192 (Mum)  Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 518 (P&H)  Sun Investment Ltd. 8 ITR (Trib) 33 (Del.)(2011) 30. It has also been urged on the basis of the assessee that the A.O. did not establish any nexus between the borrowed funds and the investments and that instead of he erroneously assumed that such investments were made wholly out of borrowed funds; t…

ACIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5295/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 14(1)Section 14ASection 35

…n the absence of a clear finding of incurring of expenditure for earning the exempt income, no disallowance u/s. 14A is called for. Following decisions have been relied on:  Priya Exhibitors (P.) Ltd. 54 SOT 356 (Delhi-Trib)(2012)  Justice Sam P. Bharucha 53 SOT 192 (Mum)  Hero Cycles Ltd. 323 ITR 518 (P&H)  Sun Investment Ltd. 8 ITR (Trib) 33 (Del.)(2011) 30. It has also been urged on the basis of the assessee that the A.O. did not establish any nexus between the borrowed funds and the investments and that instead of he erroneously assumed that such investments were made wholly out of borrowed funds; t…

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…that it had incurred no expenditure for earning such exempt income. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds…

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…that it had incurred no expenditure for earning such exempt income. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds…

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…that it had incurred no expenditure for earning such exempt income. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds…

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…that it had incurred no expenditure for earning such exempt income. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds…

M/S. PEPSI FOODS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…that it had incurred no expenditure for earning such exempt income. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds…

PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2511/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…that it had incurred no expenditure for earning such exempt income. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds…

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 685/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior Counsel
Section 143(3)

…e following decisions: (i) CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) us. [2010] 326 ITR 11192 Taxman 211 (SC) (ii) CITv. Metalman Auto (P) Ltd. [2011] 199 Taxman 149/336 ITR 434111 taxmann.com 51 (Punj & Har.) (iii) Justice Sam P Bharucha v. Addl. CIT [2012] 53 SOT 192/25 taxmann.com 381 (Mum. - Trib.) 7.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the AO and contended that the AO has duly satisfied himself in pursuance of provisions of Sec. 14A(2) that it is a fit case with reference to the accounts of the Assessee. Our attention was drawn towards pg. 7, 8 and 9 of the assessment order and it was cont…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

Leena Kasbekar v. ACIT (53 SOT 192) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax