Maruti Udyog v. DCIT

92 ITD 119Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#1305 most cited

What is Maruti Udyog v. DCIT authority for?

The onus is on the revenue to establish the nexus between expenses incurred and exempt income before making a disallowance under section 14A.

87

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maruti Udyog v. DCIT · 92 ITD 119 · section 14A · disallowance · exempt income · nexus · onus on revenue · expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 194CSection 194ISection 32Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 41(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 8d(2)(ii)section 14a(3)section 14(2)section 14a(1)section 8dsection 33bsection 134section 198section 80ia(5)section 36(1)(viii)section 194imanagement fees

Judgments citing Maruti Udyog v. DCIT

Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5232/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 234C

…odrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC)  HT Media Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2017) 85 taxmann.com 113 (Del.)  CIT Om Prakash Khaitan (2015) 376 ITR 390 (Del.)  ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2007) 101 TTJ 369 (Del.)  Maruti Udgyog Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del.)  CIT Vs Hero Cycles (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H)  DCIT Vs Nestle India Ltd. in ITA No. 2020/Del/2014 39. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee has not earned any dividend from certain investments which may not be taken into consideration while computing the disallowance. 40. On the other hand, the ld. DR totally supported the order of…

Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5231/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 234C

…odrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC)  HT Media Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2017) 85 taxmann.com 113 (Del.)  CIT Om Prakash Khaitan (2015) 376 ITR 390 (Del.)  ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2007) 101 TTJ 369 (Del.)  Maruti Udgyog Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del.)  CIT Vs Hero Cycles (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H)  DCIT Vs Nestle India Ltd. in ITA No. 2020/Del/2014 39. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee has not earned any dividend from certain investments which may not be taken into consideration while computing the disallowance. 40. On the other hand, the ld. DR totally supported the order of…

Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5230/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 234C

…odrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC)  HT Media Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2017) 85 taxmann.com 113 (Del.)  CIT Om Prakash Khaitan (2015) 376 ITR 390 (Del.)  ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2007) 101 TTJ 369 (Del.)  Maruti Udgyog Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del.)  CIT Vs Hero Cycles (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H)  DCIT Vs Nestle India Ltd. in ITA No. 2020/Del/2014 39. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee has not earned any dividend from certain investments which may not be taken into consideration while computing the disallowance. 40. On the other hand, the ld. DR totally supported the order of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4904/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 234C

…odrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC)  HT Media Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2017) 85 taxmann.com 113 (Del.)  CIT Om Prakash Khaitan (2015) 376 ITR 390 (Del.)  ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2007) 101 TTJ 369 (Del.)  Maruti Udgyog Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del.)  CIT Vs Hero Cycles (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H)  DCIT Vs Nestle India Ltd. in ITA No. 2020/Del/2014 39. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee has not earned any dividend from certain investments which may not be taken into consideration while computing the disallowance. 40. On the other hand, the ld. DR totally supported the order of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4903/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 234C

…odrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC)  HT Media Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2017) 85 taxmann.com 113 (Del.)  CIT Om Prakash Khaitan (2015) 376 ITR 390 (Del.)  ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2007) 101 TTJ 369 (Del.)  Maruti Udgyog Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del.)  CIT Vs Hero Cycles (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H)  DCIT Vs Nestle India Ltd. in ITA No. 2020/Del/2014 39. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee has not earned any dividend from certain investments which may not be taken into consideration while computing the disallowance. 40. On the other hand, the ld. DR totally supported the order of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Petronet Lng Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4902/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 234C

…odrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC)  HT Media Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2017) 85 taxmann.com 113 (Del.)  CIT Om Prakash Khaitan (2015) 376 ITR 390 (Del.)  ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2007) 101 TTJ 369 (Del.)  Maruti Udgyog Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del.)  CIT Vs Hero Cycles (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H)  DCIT Vs Nestle India Ltd. in ITA No. 2020/Del/2014 39. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee has not earned any dividend from certain investments which may not be taken into consideration while computing the disallowance. 40. On the other hand, the ld. DR totally supported the order of…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…iness of the assessee and constitutes business income eligible for deduction. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. 300 ITR 6 (Del) ii. Joyco India (P) Limited vs. ITO 122 TTJ 940 (Del.) iii. Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. DCIT 92 ITD 119 (Del.) iv. Kirloskar Ebara Pumps Ltd. vs. DCIT 138 TTJ 211 (Pune) v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT Lex doc ID 415851 As regards to interest on customer outstanding is profit derived from eligible undertakings and entitled for deduction under Section 80IA/80I, in department’s appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is covere…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…iness of the assessee and constitutes business income eligible for deduction. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd. 300 ITR 6 (Del) ii. Joyco India (P) Limited vs. ITO 122 TTJ 940 (Del.) iii. Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. DCIT 92 ITD 119 (Del.) iv. Kirloskar Ebara Pumps Ltd. vs. DCIT 138 TTJ 211 (Pune) v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT Lex doc ID 415851 As regards to interest on customer outstanding is profit derived from eligible undertakings and entitled for deduction under Section 80IA/80I, in department’s appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is covere…

Vedanta Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

ITA 12/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153

…sumptions. In ―ACIT Vs. Eicher Ltd.", 101 TTJ (Del.) 369, that it was held that: the burden is on the AO to establish nexus of expenses incurred with the earning of exempt income, before making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In ―Maruti Udyog Vs. DCIT, 92 ITD 119 (Del.), it has been held that before making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the onus to establish the nexus of the same with the exempt income, is on the revenue. In ―Wimco Seedlings Limited Vs. DCIT", 107 ITD 267 (Del.) (TM), it has been held that there can be no presumption that the assessee must have incurred expenditure to earn tax free i…

Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result , appeal in ITA no

ITA 1407/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Respondent: Mr. A.Sundararajan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 254

…e by itself would satisfy the requirements of the Plant. The assessee's ownership of limited right over the tangible asset is to conclude that the assessee is the owner of the Plant. It was also observed that in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 92 ITD 119, Radha Krishna Foodland Ltd. ; Escorts Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2006) 8 SOT 167 and Hero Honda Motors Ltd., the conclusion that the expenditure on purchase of computer software was capital proceeded on the footing that the purchase was an outright purchase and that Software was an intangible asset." 6.15 A recent ruling in the case of Makemytrip (Indi…

Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result , appeal in ITA no

ITA 1406/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Respondent: Mr. A.Sundararajan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 254

…e by itself would satisfy the requirements of the Plant. The assessee's ownership of limited right over the tangible asset is to conclude that the assessee is the owner of the Plant. It was also observed that in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 92 ITD 119, Radha Krishna Foodland Ltd. ; Escorts Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2006) 8 SOT 167 and Hero Honda Motors Ltd., the conclusion that the expenditure on purchase of computer software was capital proceeded on the footing that the purchase was an outright purchase and that Software was an intangible asset." 6.15 A recent ruling in the case of Makemytrip (Indi…

M/S. Unitech Infra- Con Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6679/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

…ral decided precedents during appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), which included the following decisions:- 1. Wimco Seedings Ltd. Vs. DCIT. 107 ITD 267 (Del) 2. Impulse (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 22 SOT 368(Del). 3. Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. DCIT, 92 ITD 119 (Del). 4. CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC). 5. CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [195] 19 ITR 191. 6. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 361. 7. The Printers House Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 227/2009 dated 16.04.2009. 8. CIT vs. Hindustan Tin Works Limited in ITA No. 55/2009 dated 13.02.2009. 9. Design C…

Genus Innovation Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 824/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…O under section 43B in respect of the advance payment of Sales tax/vat. The ld. A/R has pointed out that the Tribunal while deciding the issue against the assessee has followed the decision of Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in case of Maruti Udyog vs. DCIT, 92 ITD 119. However, the said decision has been subsequently reversed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 07.12.2017 in ITA No. 31/2005. Even otherwise, the claim of deduction in respect of the advance payment of Vat under section 43B is a debatable issue and, therefore, it was a bonafide claim of the assessee which was disallowed by the AO…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur vs. Commercial Engineers & Body Builders Co. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 658/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Maduk, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri B. L. Gupta, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…presumptions. In “ACIT Vs. Eicher Ltd.”, 101 TTJ (Del.) 369, that it was held that the burden is on the AO to establish nexus of expenses incurred with the earning of exempt income, before making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In “Maruti Udyog Vs. DCIT, 92 ITD 119 (Del.), it has been held that before making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the onus to establish the nexus of the same with the exempt income, is on the revenue. In “Wimco Seedlings Limited Vs. DCIT”, 107 ITD 267 (Del.) (TM), it has been held that there can be no presumption that the assessee must have incurred expenditure to earn tax free i…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur vs. Commercial Engineers & Body Builders Co. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Maduk, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri B. L. Gupta, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…presumptions. In “ACIT Vs. Eicher Ltd.”, 101 TTJ (Del.) 369, that it was held that the burden is on the AO to establish nexus of expenses incurred with the earning of exempt income, before making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In “Maruti Udyog Vs. DCIT, 92 ITD 119 (Del.), it has been held that before making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the onus to establish the nexus of the same with the exempt income, is on the revenue. In “Wimco Seedlings Limited Vs. DCIT”, 107 ITD 267 (Del.) (TM), it has been held that there can be no presumption that the assessee must have incurred expenditure to earn tax free i…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. E Bay India P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7098/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-2008 The Dcit-6 (2), M/S. E-Bay India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 563, 202, B-Wing, Phoenix House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Churchgate, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 13 Pan: Aabcb2307H (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 37/Mum/2012 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 M/S. E-Bay India Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit- Circle 6(2), 14Th Floor, North Block, Room No. 563, R-Tech Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Western Express Highway, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aabcb2307H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: S.K. Mishra (DR)
Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

…l further contended that since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are based on the settled law, there is no merit in the appeal of the revenue. The Ld. counsel relied on the following cases to substantiate the contention of the assessee:- 1. Maruti Udyog Limited (92 ITD 119) Delhi Tribunal. 2. J B Advani & Company Limited (18 ITR 557) (Bombay High Court) 3. National Rayon Corporation (155 ITR 413) (Bombay High Court) 4. J N Singh & Company Private Limited (60 ITR 732) (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 5. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stockholders Association Private Limited (99 ITR 567) (Gujarat High Court). 6.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jsl Ltd., Hisar

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…T Vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor : 319 ITR 299 (Delhi)  CIT v. Adarsh Kumar Goel: [2011] 199 Taxman 149 (Punj. &Har.)(Mag.)  Wimco Seedlings Limited vs. DCIT : 107 ITD 267 (Del.)(TM)  Minda Investments Ltd. v. DCIT: 138 TTJ 240 (Del.)  Maruti Udyog Limited V. DCIT: 92 ITD 119 (Del.)  ACIT v. Eicher Limited: 101 TTJ 369 (Del.)  DLF Ltd. vs. CIT: 27 SOT 22 (Del)  Punjab National Bank V. DCIT: 103 TTJ 908 (Del.)  Vidyut Investment Ltd: [2006] 10 SOT 284 (Del.)  Impulse (India) Pvt. Ltd.: (2008) 22 SOT 368 (Del.)  D.J. Mehta v. ITO: 290 ITR 238 (Mum.)(AT)  Jindal Photo Ltd vs. DCIT: ITA No. 814 (Del) 2011  CIT v. K…

Jindal Stainless Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…T Vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor : 319 ITR 299 (Delhi)  CIT v. Adarsh Kumar Goel: [2011] 199 Taxman 149 (Punj. &Har.)(Mag.)  Wimco Seedlings Limited vs. DCIT : 107 ITD 267 (Del.)(TM)  Minda Investments Ltd. v. DCIT: 138 TTJ 240 (Del.)  Maruti Udyog Limited V. DCIT: 92 ITD 119 (Del.)  ACIT v. Eicher Limited: 101 TTJ 369 (Del.)  DLF Ltd. vs. CIT: 27 SOT 22 (Del)  Punjab National Bank V. DCIT: 103 TTJ 908 (Del.)  Vidyut Investment Ltd: [2006] 10 SOT 284 (Del.)  Impulse (India) Pvt. Ltd.: (2008) 22 SOT 368 (Del.)  D.J. Mehta v. ITO: 290 ITR 238 (Mum.)(AT)  Jindal Photo Ltd vs. DCIT: ITA No. 814 (Del) 2011  CIT v. K…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…ITR 474 (Guj). 6.3. Reference can also be made to the decisions in Chemical & Mettallurgical Design Co. Ltd : ITA No. 803/2008 (Delhi), CIT Vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor : 319 ITR 299 (Delhi), ACIT v. Eicher Limited: 101 TTJ 369 (Del.) , Maruti Udyog Limited V. DCIT: 92 ITD 119 (Del.), on the aspect of section 14A of the Act, wherein it has been held that without any cogent basis and material on record, no artificial/ ad-hoc disallowance is permissible for expenses incurred by the assessee, and the legal position that emerges from the these decisions is that: (a) there must be some actual expenditure incurred; and (b) su…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tulip Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he earning of exempt income, before making any disallowance u/s14A [ACIT vs. Eicher Ltd 101 TTJ (Del) 369]. vi) Before making any disallowance u/s14A, the onus to establish the nexus of the same with the exempt income, is on the revenue [Maruti Udyog vs. DCIT 92 ITD 119 (Del)]. vii) There cannot be any presumption that the assessee must have incurred expenditure to earn tax free income [Wimco Seedlings vs. DCIT107 ITD267 (Del.(TM)]. 11 M/s.Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., 5.1.10 I find that the A.O. has not disputed that the appellant had invested in unquoted shares of sister/subsidiary companies; he has also not dispute…