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

242 ITR 450Supreme Court of India2002#639 most cited

What is Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd: 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred by an assessee operating a composite business that generates both taxable and non-taxable income is fully allowable without apportionment. This position led to the subsequent insertion of Section 14A, which disallowed expenditure related to earning exempt income.

154

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd · Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation · Section 14A · expenditure allowance · composite business · taxable income · non-taxable income · apportionment of expenditure · exempt income · disallowance of expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 8DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 115JBSection 1961Section 37(1)Section 4

Issues it is cited on

strategic investmentsection 144adisallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 14asection 115jrevenue expendituresection 115jbnon-residentsection 37previous yearsection 19

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

Northpoint Centre of Learning, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 15(1), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5069/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…h the correctness of its claim. c. The learned CIT(A) failed to establish any nexus between the expenditure incurred and the exempt income earned and failed to take into consideration the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajasthan Warehousing reported in 242 ITR 450 and in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles (Punjab and Haryana High Court) which held that no expense can be disallowed if the nexus cannot be established for incurring expenditure for earning tax free income and section 14A cannot be merely applied on presumption. 3. Disallowance of Professional Fee of Rs. 4,00,000/- The learned CIT(A) erred in conf…

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Lake View Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4495/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3409/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Lake View Developers Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai 211 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4495/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Lake View Developers Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) (Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4496/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Omega Associates, बनाम/ Mumbai 514, Dalamal Tower, 211-F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Chetan Karia Revenue By Assessee By : Shri R. P. Rastogi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Rastogi
Section 143(3)Section 22

…second appeal. 4. Before us, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) relied on Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC); CIT vs. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC); Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC); and CIT vs. Chugandas & Co. [1965] 55 ITR 17 (SC). The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), besides seeking to distinguish the said reliance, relied on East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. vs. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC). Assessee’s Appeal (in ITA No. 3409/Mum/2013) 5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on reco…

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

…ntrolling interest which was deductible u/s. 36(1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee in this respect relied on the Calcutta High Court case of Rajeev Lochan Kanoria 208 ITR 616, Indian Bank Ltd. 56 ITR 77 (SC), Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation- 242 ITR 450(SC) and Taj Trade and Investment Ltd. of Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai ‘A’ Bench ITA No.3374/M/1994. In view of assessee’s reply about its activity of investment in group companies share for the purpose of controlling interest and allowability of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) , the AO held that that the assessee had admitted the direct nexus between the borrow…

M/S. Ici India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 852/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…ssee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of AO by observing as under:- “34.I have duly considered the submission of the AR of the company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. vs CIT, 242 ITR 450 has held that only such expenses related to earning of exempted dividend income are disallowance u/s. 14A of the IT Act. However, the appellant company has also not quantified the specific amount of expenses although it has implicitly admitted that certain expenses are bound to be incurred for earning the exempted dividend income. The company has…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Ici India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1019/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…ssee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of AO by observing as under:- “34.I have duly considered the submission of the AR of the company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. vs CIT, 242 ITR 450 has held that only such expenses related to earning of exempted dividend income are disallowance u/s. 14A of the IT Act. However, the appellant company has also not quantified the specific amount of expenses although it has implicitly admitted that certain expenses are bound to be incurred for earning the exempted dividend income. The company has…

M/S. Ici India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…ssee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of AO by observing as under:- “34.I have duly considered the submission of the AR of the company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. vs CIT, 242 ITR 450 has held that only such expenses related to earning of exempted dividend income are disallowance u/s. 14A of the IT Act. However, the appellant company has also not quantified the specific amount of expenses although it has implicitly admitted that certain expenses are bound to be incurred for earning the exempted dividend income. The company has…

ACIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Ici India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2613/KOL/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…ssee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of AO by observing as under:- “34.I have duly considered the submission of the AR of the company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. vs CIT, 242 ITR 450 has held that only such expenses related to earning of exempted dividend income are disallowance u/s. 14A of the IT Act. However, the appellant company has also not quantified the specific amount of expenses although it has implicitly admitted that certain expenses are bound to be incurred for earning the exempted dividend income. The company has…

Cni Research Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4395/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Cni Research Ltd. Dcit-5(1), A/12 Gokul Arcade, Mumbai बनाम/ Sahar Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai-400057 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaccc2842H

Section 14A

…to insertion of Section 14A 2.6. Prior to the introduction of section 14A in the said Act, the position in law was as laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd: 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT: 242 ITR 450 (SC). In Maharashtra sugar Mills Ltd (supra) the assessee’s business comprised of two parts, namely, (1) cultivation of sugar cane and (2) the manufacture of sugar. The revenue had contended that as the income from the cultivation of sugar cane, being the result of an agricultural operation, was not exigible to tax, therefore, any expenditure…

D.C.I.T, Circle 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.(Now Meged With Icici Bank Ltd W.E.F 12.8.2010), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7094/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, M/S Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. Circle-3(1), (Now Merged With Icici बनाम/ Room No.607, Bank Ltd. On 12.08.2010) Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Icici Bank Tower, 9Th Floor, Mumbai-400020 South East Wing Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaact7434N

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…ged with ICII Bank Ltd. was Rs.77.27 crores, meaning thereby, the investment was made out of own funds only and not from the borrowed funds. In such a situation, the assessee gets support from the decision in Rajasthan state warehousing corporation vs CIT (242 ITR 450)(SC), CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340)(Bom.), CIT vs Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H) and various decisions of the Tribunal mentioned at page-5 of the impugned order. It is further noticed that the assessee itself offered an amount of Rs.18,12,188/- being 1/2% of the average value of the investment as per rule 8D(2)(iii) of…

Virji Bharamal Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2996/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Ms. Lata Sunder
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA No 2995 & 2996/MUM/2012 Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2008-09 Smt. Virji Bharmal Gala. The ITO (13) (3)(1), 267/71, Narshi Natha Street, Room No. 428, 4th floor, Veermani Market, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400009. Vs. M.K.Marg, Mumbai- 400020 PAN : AAFPG1868B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Ratan Samal Respondent by : Ms. Lata Sunder Date of Hearing: 15/10/2015 Date of Pronouncement: 24/02/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM These appeals are directed against two orders b…

Virji Bharamal Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2995/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Ms. Lata Sunder
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA No 2995 & 2996/MUM/2012 Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2008-09 Smt. Virji Bharmal Gala. The ITO (13) (3)(1), 267/71, Narshi Natha Street, Room No. 428, 4th floor, Veermani Market, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400009. Vs. M.K.Marg, Mumbai- 400020 PAN : AAFPG1868B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Ratan Samal Respondent by : Ms. Lata Sunder Date of Hearing: 15/10/2015 Date of Pronouncement: 24/02/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM These appeals are directed against two orders b…

Super Auto Forge Private Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1008/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1008/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009. M/S. Super Auto Forge Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Ts/82/2 Mettu Street, Of Income Tax, Gamapath Nagar, Company Circle Vi(4) Ekkattuthangal, Chennai Chennai 600 097. [Pan Aabcs 0459B ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Vivekanandan, IRS, CIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 70Section 92CSection 92E

…n of expenditure attributable to the exempted income in the computation of total income. The ld. Authorised Representative filed written submissions and relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT (242 ITR 450) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd (323 ITR 518) and submitted that no expenditure is incurred for earning above exempt income were no disallowance of expenditure was worked out. Further, Rule 8D has come into effect from 24.03.2008 for the assessment year 2008-2009 and relied on decisions and applicabili…

Four Dimensions Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1011/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1st Floor, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAACF1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner of M/s Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Secur…

DCIT -4(1), Mumbai vs. Four Dimension Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 790/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1st Floor, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAACF1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner of M/s Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Secur…

Four Dimensions Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1st Floor, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAACF1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner of M/s Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Secur…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Planet Online Pvt Ltd

ITTA/320/2013HC Telangana07 Aug 2013

CIT vs. Goswamis Credits & Investments Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 603 / 2012HC Delhi16 Oct 2012
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…n CIT versus Raeeva Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal.), CIT versus Indian Bank Limited, (1965) 56 ITR 77 (SC), CIT versus Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited, (1971) 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation versus CIT, (2000) 242 ITR 450 (SC). . 6. The CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal have considered the aforesaid explanation given by the assessee to justify their claim why no disallowance was mandated under Section 14A in the present case. They have accepted that the explanation given by the assessee was genuine and bona fide. The contention of the respondent ass…

CIT vs. Jindal Equipment Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 68 / 2012HC Delhi03 Feb 2012
Section 115OSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…n CIT versus Raeeva Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal.), CIT versus Indian Bank Limited, (1965) 56 ITR 77 (SC), CIT versus Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited, (1971) 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation versus CIT, (2000) 242 ITR 450 (SC). . 6. The CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal have considered the aforesaid explanation given by the assessee to justify their claim why no disallowance was mandated under Section 14A in the present case. They have accepted that the explanation given by the assessee was genuine and bona fide. The contention of the respondent ass…

CIT vs. Select Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/1024/2011HC Delhi02 Dec 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur
Section 14A

…to insertion of Section 14A 12. Prior to the introduction of section 14A in the said Act, the position in law was as laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd: 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT: 242 ITR 450 (SC). In Malzarashtra sugar Mills Ltd (supra) the assessee's business comprised of two ·parts, namely, (1) cultivation of sugar cane and (2) the manufacture of sugar. The revenue had contended that as the income from the cultivation of sugar cane, being the result of an agricultural operation, was not exigible to tax, therefore, any expenditu…

CIT vs. Select Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 1024 / 2011HC Delhi02 Dec 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur
Section 14A

…to insertion of Section 14A 12. Prior to the introduction of section 14A in the said Act, the position in law was as laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd: 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT: 242 ITR 450 (SC). In Malzarashtra sugar Mills Ltd (supra) the assessee's business comprised of two ·parts, namely, (1) cultivation of sugar cane and (2) the manufacture of sugar. The revenue had contended that as the income from the cultivation of sugar cane, being the result of an agricultural operation, was not exigible to tax, therefore, any expenditu…