Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

347 ITR 272High Court2012#129 most cited

What is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the assessee's accounts before making any disallowance.

516

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT · section 14A · disallowance under section 14A · exempt dividend income · satisfaction of AO · Rule 8D · disallowance cannot exceed exempt income

Also reported as

203 Taxmann 36415 Taxmann.com 390

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 115JBSection 8DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(2)disallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 14arevenue expendituresection 115jsection 115jbsection 19section 37(1)section 36section 37section 115

Judgments citing Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 466/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80Section 80l

…fficer to proceed to compute disallowance of expenses under section 14A by merely applying rule 8D(2){iii). The legal implications of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 14A have been examined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maxcopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (347 ITR 272) and it has been held that the AO has to record cogent reasons to reject the claim of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred by him for earning the exempt income. 11. It is however, observed from the assessment order that the AO has not assigned any reason while finding the submissions of the appellant as unsatisfactory. The identical…

M/S Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 297/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80Section 80l

…fficer to proceed to compute disallowance of expenses under section 14A by merely applying rule 8D(2){iii). The legal implications of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 14A have been examined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maxcopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (347 ITR 272) and it has been held that the AO has to record cogent reasons to reject the claim of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred by him for earning the exempt income. 11. It is however, observed from the assessment order that the AO has not assigned any reason while finding the submissions of the appellant as unsatisfactory. The identical…

M/S. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3651/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Tourism Finance Corporation of ACIT India Ltd. Cir-16(1) Vs. 13th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru New Delhi. Place New Delhi 110 019 PAN AAACT0706D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA Assessee by : Shri K. Hauthang, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/03/2019 Date of 13/05/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 28.03.2014 passed by Ld. CIT (A…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Incredible Capital Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3935/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Incredible Capital Ltd., Income Tax, 8/19, Ground Floor, Smile Circle-12(1), New Delhi Chamber, Wea, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan :Aabci4307C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca

Section 14A

…ements and since the appellant does not have any dividend income no disallowance under section 14A can be made. Further in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. 370 ITR 338(061.), Hon'ble Court followed the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.), which also goes in favour of appellant. Thus whenever the issue of 14A arises the AO should ascertain the correctness of the claim of the appellant in respect of expenditure incurred or not incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. In case the AO is satisfied with the claim of the appellant…

Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3738/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Nhpc Ltd., Tax, Circle-Ii, Nhpc Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Ita No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nhpc Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Nhpc Complex, 4Th Floor, Tax, Circle-Ii, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43A

…expenses under section 14A by merely applying rule 8D(2)(iii). The legal implications of sub-section (2) and (3) of ITA Nos. 3650 & 3738/Del/2015 13 NHPC Ltd. section 14A have been examined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maxcopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (347 ITR 272) and it has been held that the AO has to record cogent reasons to reject the claim of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred by him for earning the exempt income. 5.5 It is however, observed from the assessment order that the AO has not assigned any reason while finding the submissions of the appellant as unsatisfactory. The identical…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3650/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Nhpc Ltd., Tax, Circle-Ii, Nhpc Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Ita No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nhpc Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Nhpc Complex, 4Th Floor, Tax, Circle-Ii, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43A

…expenses under section 14A by merely applying rule 8D(2)(iii). The legal implications of sub-section (2) and (3) of ITA Nos. 3650 & 3738/Del/2015 13 NHPC Ltd. section 14A have been examined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maxcopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (347 ITR 272) and it has been held that the AO has to record cogent reasons to reject the claim of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred by him for earning the exempt income. 5.5 It is however, observed from the assessment order that the AO has not assigned any reason while finding the submissions of the appellant as unsatisfactory. The identical…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal I.T

ITA 3437/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Rita Dokania, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 3358, 1988, 3359 & 3360 /Ahd/2015 A. Y. 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The DCIT, Gujarat Urja Vikas Circle-1(1)(1), Nigam Ltd. Sardar Vadodara Vs Patel Vidyut Bhavan (Appellant) Race Course Circle, Baroda-390007 PAN: AACCG2861L (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3437, 2014, 3438 & 3439/Ahd/ 2015 A. Y. 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam The DCIT, Ltd. Sardar Patel Vidyut Circle-1(1)(1), Bhavan Race Course Vs Vadodara Circle, Baroda-390007…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Baroda

In the result, appeal I.T

ITA 3358/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Rita Dokania, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 3358, 1988, 3359 & 3360 /Ahd/2015 A. Y. 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The DCIT, Gujarat Urja Vikas Circle-1(1)(1), Nigam Ltd. Sardar Vadodara Vs Patel Vidyut Bhavan (Appellant) Race Course Circle, Baroda-390007 PAN: AACCG2861L (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3437, 2014, 3438 & 3439/Ahd/ 2015 A. Y. 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam The DCIT, Ltd. Sardar Patel Vidyut Circle-1(1)(1), Bhavan Race Course Vs Vadodara Circle, Baroda-390007…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…absence of any satisfaction recorded in the assessment order, the disallowance as per Rule 8D needs to be deleted. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) • Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.)- Affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 402 ITR 640 • H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: ITA No.548/2015 (Del.) dated 23.8.2017 • Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: ITA No. 136/2017 dated 15.09.2017 The Ld. AR further submitted that even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses with investm…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vipul Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5145/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivipul Ltd, Vs. Acit, Regus Rectangle, Level-4, Range-7, Rectangle-1, D-4, Commercial New Delhi Complex, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca5396C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Vipul Ltd, Circle-26(2), Regus Rectangle, Level-4, New Delhi Rectangle-1, D-4, Commercial Complex, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca5396C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vipul Ltd, Vs. ACIT, Regus Rectangle, Level-4, Range-7, Rectangle-1, D-4, Commercial New Delhi Complex, Saket, New Delhi PAN: AAACA5396C (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Vs. Vipul Ltd, Circle-26(2), Regus Rectangle, Level-4, New Delhi Rectangle-1, D-4, Commercial Complex, Saket, New Delhi PAN: AAACA5396C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Arora, CA Revenue by: Shri K. Hauthang, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/03/2019 Date of pronouncement 05/04/2019 O R D E R P…

Deepak Shantilal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 6912/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

…s and has failed to prove the nexus between expenditure incurred and the exempt income received d. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in not considering the decisions in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd & Ors v/s CIT (2011)347 ITR 272 (Del)(HC) and Kodak India Pvt.Ltd. v/s ACIT (2013) 155 TTJ 697 (Mum)(Trib). e. Without prejudice to the above, under the facts of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not giving clear directions to the AO in re-computing the disallowance under clause (iii) of the Rule 8D. Relief claimed. The Appellant prays that the AO be given suitable directions in…

DCIT, Circle- 2, Meerut vs. Romi Shiv, Meerut

ITA 3900/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…end income proceeded to invoke the provisions contained u/s 14A read with section 36(1)(iii) in a mechanical manner which is not permissible under law. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 4 ITA No.3900/Del./2017 – (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) while deciding the identical issue has held as under :- “Section 14A even prior to the introduction of sub- sections (2) and (3) would require the Assessing Officer to first reject the claim of the assessee with regard to the extent of such expenditure and such rejection must be for disclosed cogent reasons. It is then that the question o…

Jubilant Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Je Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Noida

ITA 7602/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 92BSection 92D

…eived by the taxpayer during the year under assessment. In these circumstances, we set aside this issue to the AO to recompute disallowance u/s 14A in the light of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investments Limited vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) by providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer. Consequently, additional ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 34. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the taxpayer is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 15th day of January, 2019. sd/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated the 15th day o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1442/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 115Section 14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1441 & 1442/Del/2015. Assessment Years: 2011-12 & [2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Punjab and Sind the Bank, Bank House, 1st Floor, Circle – 20(1), New Delhi. 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. PAN: AAACP1206G Assessee by Shri Vivek Gupta, CA Revenue by Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 03.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 09.01.2019 ORDER PER K.NARASIMHA CHARY: Challenging the order dated 22.12.2014 in Appeal Nos.102/13-14 and 153…

M/S. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 2469/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR
Section 14Section 14A

…income. In the appeal initially CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, resulting in the assessee filing ITA No.4253/Del/2011. However, subsequently pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp investment Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 holding that Rule 8D was not applicable to assessment years earlier than 2008-09, an application for rectification was filed. CIT(A) accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee bank that Rule 8D cannot be invoked in the years earlier to 2008-09 and in the place of the earlier disallowance of Rs.119.58 crores, he disallowed 10% of t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 2966/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR
Section 14Section 14A

…income. In the appeal initially CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, resulting in the assessee filing ITA No.4253/Del/2011. However, subsequently pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp investment Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 holding that Rule 8D was not applicable to assessment years earlier than 2008-09, an application for rectification was filed. CIT(A) accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee bank that Rule 8D cannot be invoked in the years earlier to 2008-09 and in the place of the earlier disallowance of Rs.119.58 crores, he disallowed 10% of t…

Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 2406/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR
Section 14Section 14A

…income. In the appeal initially CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, resulting in the assessee filing ITA No.4253/Del/2011. However, subsequently pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp investment Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 holding that Rule 8D was not applicable to assessment years earlier than 2008-09, an application for rectification was filed. CIT(A) accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee bank that Rule 8D cannot be invoked in the years earlier to 2008-09 and in the place of the earlier disallowance of Rs.119.58 crores, he disallowed 10% of t…

Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 4722/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR
Section 14Section 14A

…income. In the appeal initially CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, resulting in the assessee filing ITA No.4253/Del/2011. However, subsequently pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp investment Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 holding that Rule 8D was not applicable to assessment years earlier than 2008-09, an application for rectification was filed. CIT(A) accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee bank that Rule 8D cannot be invoked in the years earlier to 2008-09 and in the place of the earlier disallowance of Rs.119.58 crores, he disallowed 10% of t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 4718/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR
Section 14Section 14A

…income. In the appeal initially CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, resulting in the assessee filing ITA No.4253/Del/2011. However, subsequently pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp investment Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 holding that Rule 8D was not applicable to assessment years earlier than 2008-09, an application for rectification was filed. CIT(A) accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee bank that Rule 8D cannot be invoked in the years earlier to 2008-09 and in the place of the earlier disallowance of Rs.119.58 crores, he disallowed 10% of t…

Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 1788/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR
Section 14Section 14A

…income. In the appeal initially CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, resulting in the assessee filing ITA No.4253/Del/2011. However, subsequently pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp investment Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 holding that Rule 8D was not applicable to assessment years earlier than 2008-09, an application for rectification was filed. CIT(A) accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee bank that Rule 8D cannot be invoked in the years earlier to 2008-09 and in the place of the earlier disallowance of Rs.119.58 crores, he disallowed 10% of t…