Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd: 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Incred Holdings Limited (Formerly Known As Kkr Capital Markets India Limited)., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

…he provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 242 ITR 450 in terms of which, expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable as well as non-taxable income, was allowable in entirety without apportionment. It was thus that s.14A was inserted providing that no deduction shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of inco…

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Incred Holdings Limited (Formerly Known As Kkr Capital Markets India Limited)., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

…he provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 242 ITR 450 in terms of which, expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable as well as non-taxable income, was allowable in entirety without apportionment. It was thus that s.14A was inserted providing that no deduction shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of inco…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

…he provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 242 ITR 450 in terms of which, expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable as well as non-taxable income, was allowable in entirety without apportionment. It was thus that s.14A was inserted providing that no deduction shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of inco…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

…he provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 242 ITR 450 in terms of which, expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable as well as non-taxable income, was allowable in entirety without apportionment. It was thus that s.14A was inserted providing that no deduction shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of inco…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

…he provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 242 ITR 450 in terms of which, expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable as well as non-taxable income, was allowable in entirety without apportionment. It was thus that s.14A was inserted providing that no deduction shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of inco…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

…he provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 242 ITR 450 in terms of which, expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable as well as non-taxable income, was allowable in entirety without apportionment. It was thus that s.14A was inserted providing that no deduction shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of inco…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

…he provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 242 ITR 450 in terms of which, expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable as well as non-taxable income, was allowable in entirety without apportionment. It was thus that s.14A was inserted providing that no deduction shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of inco…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

…he provisions of section 14A were inserted as a response to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 242 ITR 450 in terms of which, expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable as well as non-taxable income, was allowable in entirety without apportionment. It was thus that s.14A was inserted providing that no deduction shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of inco…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…al division. The various business activities of the assessee are clearly demarcated, however there is no separate demarcation of funds. e) Therefore, the principles laid down in the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Rajasthan warehousing versus CIT [242 ITR 450 ] that when all venture carried on by the assessee do not constitute one individual business, the principle of apportionment of expenditure will apply. The same principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court Page | 15 in case of waterfall Estates Ltd versus CIT [219 ITR 563]. 24) The learned assessing officer therefore considered the submissio…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

…al division. The various business activities of the assessee are clearly demarcated, however there is no separate demarcation of funds. e) Therefore, the principles laid down in the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Rajasthan warehousing versus CIT [242 ITR 450 ] that when all venture carried on by the assessee do not constitute one individual business, the principle of apportionment of expenditure will apply. The same principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court ` in case of waterfall Estates Ltd versus CIT [219 ITR 563]. 24) The learned assessing officer therefore considered the submission made…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…ision. The various business activities of the assessee are clearly demarcated, however there is no separate demarcation of funds. e) Therefore, the principles laid down in the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Rajasthan warehousing versus CIT [242 ITR 450 ] that when all venture carried on by the assessee do not constitute one individual business, the principle of apportionment of expenditure will apply. The same principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court Page | 15 in case of waterfall Estates Ltd versus CIT [219 ITR 563]. 24) The learned assessing officer therefore considered the s…

Tata Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T., Range-2(3), Mumbai

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3676/MUM/2009 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Tata Industries Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 [PAN: AAACT4058L] Appellant Vs Respondent Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 2(3), Mumbai, Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee Ms. Aarti Vissanji Ms. Aastha Shah For the Respondent/Department : Shri P.C Chhottary Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order ORDER Per R…

M/S. Prime Property Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT C 10 (3) (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 3291/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) Vs. ACIT/JCIT/DCIT/ M/s. Prime Property Development Corporation Ltd. ITO-NFAC 501, Soni House, Plot No. 34 552, Aayakar Gulmohar Road No. 1, JVPD Bhavan Scheme, Vile Parle (W) M.K. Road Mumbai-400 049. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AAECS8014P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Shri Rashmi Vyas Department by Shri H.M. Bhatt Date of Hearing 03.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement 03.01.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assesse…

Reliance Power Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3041/Mum./2023 ITA no.3042/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Reliance Power Limited Reliance Centre, Ground Floor 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAACR2365L v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–15(3)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Sanghvi a/w Shri Amit Khatiwala Revenue by : Smt. Somogyan Pal Date of Hearing – 21/12/2023 Date of Order – 29/12/202…

Reliance Power Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax .Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3041/Mum./2023 ITA no.3042/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Reliance Power Limited Reliance Centre, Ground Floor 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAACR2365L v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–15(3)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Sanghvi a/w Shri Amit Khatiwala Revenue by : Smt. Somogyan Pal Date of Hearing – 21/12/2023 Date of Order – 29/12/202…