How many judgments cite Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT?

516 judgments on BharatTax cite Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (347 ITR 272), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 8D, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 36(1)(iii).

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 14A Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 8D Section 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 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 14a revenue expenditure section 115j section 115jb section 19 section 37(1)section 36 section 37 section 115

Judgments citing Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Investment Managers P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

…lowance u/s 14A of the Act. This decision was followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 328 ITR 81. 4.10. He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. 347 ITR 272, wherein it has been held that no disallowance could be made under the said section where no expenditure had ‘actually’ been incurred by the assessee in relation to earning of the exempt income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court approved the contention raised by the assessee that the term ‘expenditure incurred’ appearing in Sec. 14A(1) of the Act woul…

K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd., Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5463/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Chadha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Dass, Senior DR

Section 114Section 14A

…rred on earning dividend income of Rs.10,69,000/- proceeded to invoke the provisions contained u/s 14A read with Rule 8D in a mechanical manner which is not permissible. 8. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in judgment cited as Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT – (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) while deciding the identical issue 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 of de…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…appeal filed by the assessee. 21. Before us, the Ld. counsel submits that Rule 8D is not automatic and he relies on the decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) (81 taxmann.com 111) (SC), Maxopp Investment Ltd. Mangalore Refinery (203 Taxmann 364) (Del HC), CIT v. I.P Support Services India Private Limited (378 ITR 240) (Del HC), CIT v. REI Agro Ltd. (ITA No. 161 of 2013) (Cal. HC) and Graviss Hospitality Ltd. v. DCIT (67 SOT 184) (Mum). It is further submitted that the assessee has sufficient own funds/net worth as compared to the investments made as can be seen from the audited fina…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Phl Finvest P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2318/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2318/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Circle 7(3)(2), Room No. 669A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-20 Vs. Phl Fininvest Pvt. Ltd. …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Piramal Tower, Ganpatarao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-13 स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacn5024A अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Yogesh A Thar Ms. Manshi Padhiar, Ars’ ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, DRFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh A Thar

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री एन. के. प्रधान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 2318/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax …… (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) Circle 7(3)(2), Room No. 669A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-20 Vs. PHL Fininvest Pvt. Ltd. …… (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) Piramal Tower, Ganpatarao Kadam marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-13 स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN NO. AAACN5024A अपीलाथी की…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR

Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

…Del/2015 other business functions carried on by the appellant and no portion thereof can be attributed towards the earning of dividend income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT: 347 ITR 272 wherein the High Court has analyzed the scope of provisions of section 14A and the powers vested with the assessing officer before invoking the same. The High Court held, that the expression “expenditure incurred” refers to actual expenditure and not to some imagined expenditure. It was held, that the provisions of sub- section (2)/ (3) of sectio…

Siara Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1101 & 1102/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 14ASection 80I

…Financial Limited Vs. ACIT – ITA No.4521/Mum/2012 7. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA Nos.5408/Mum/2012 Decisions relied on in respect of Ground No.2 : 1. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.) 2. Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del.) 3. Development Credit Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 23 ITR 209 (Mum. Trib.) He also relied on the following decisions : 1. ACIT Vs. M/s. Udit Packaging Pvt. Ltd. – ITA No.1272/PN/2011, dated 25-02-2013 2. DCIT Vs. M/s. Saibaba Spareparts & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – ITA No.1332/Mum/2009, dated 04-06-2010 3. DCIT Vs. M/s. Kryfs Power Components Lt…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Ventures P Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4347/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Garg, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

….A. No.4347/DEL/2014 as to how the working of the disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect. In support reliance was placed on various decisions including that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2012) 347 ITR 272 and catena of other decisions. Further, it was submitted that assessee has disallowed sum of Rs.1,89,49,298/- out of indirect expenditure and Assessing Officer should have reduced it from disallowance of indirect expenditure which he has not done. The past history of disallowances made u/s.14A and effect of the appellate orders were also filed.…

Teletec Finsec India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, issue recalled by this Tribunal is set aside to Ld

ITA 2885/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Teletec Finsec India (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 16(2) A-60, Naraina Indl. Area New Delhi Phase I New Delhi 110 028 Pan: Aaact3720F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…itted by Ld.Counsel that Assessing Officer considered opening and closing value of investments, aggregating to Rs.1,55,20,81,458/-. Ld. Counsel placing reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd vs CIT reported in 347 ITR 272, submitted that no satisfaction has been recorded by Ld. AO, regarding his dissatisfaction with correctness of claim of assessee, in respect of the expenditure. He submitted that even Ld.CIT (A) has not validly recorded satisfaction. 3.3. The next plea raised by Ld.Counsel was that, investment which actually yielded exempt income should be consid…

DCIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Punjab Agro Industries Corp. Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1320/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Satish BansalFor Respondent: Shri. Yoginder Mittal

Section 14A

…,20,000/- is out of the investment made from non interest bearing funds and argued that in fairness of things the disallowance may be restricted to the exempt income. 8. He relied on the following judgments: "Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Others vs. CIT (2011) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi HC) and CIT vs Hero Management Services Ltd (2014) 360 ITR 68 (Delhi HC). CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P & H HC) ACIT vs. Iqbal M. Chagla (Mumbai Tribunal). CIT vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. (2009) (P & H) (HC) CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing (P & H) (HC), CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd (2014) 45 taxman 116 (Gujrat) (HC),…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jai Krishan Estate Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4082/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K. Saini & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jai Krishan Estate Circle-3(1), C.R. Building, Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi A-26, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi Pan :Aabcj2911R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Saurabh Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2018 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi, Dated 22.04.2015, On The Following Two Effective Grounds: 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Interest Free Loan Advance Of Rs.1,18,42,528/- Given By The Assessee. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,82,26,810/- Made U/S 14A R/W Rule 8D Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not given cogent reason or opinion about the correctness or otherwise of the assessee’s claim. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi), it was concluded by the Ld. CIT(A) that the Assessing has not recorded the satisfaction as required in law. However, while going through the order of the Assessing Officer, as it was clearly brought on record by the able Departmental Representative, that the Assessing Officer has duly recorded the satisfaction as required in law. Therefo…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 168/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Harakamal Chakravorty, ARFor Respondent: Shr P.K.Srihari, CIT

Section 115J

…any expenditure in relation to dividend income. Hence Provision of section 14A do not apply at all. Assessee has relied on citation of the following cases: 1.CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd [ 323 ITR 518]- P&H High Court 2. Maxopp Investment Limited vs. CIT [(2012)347 ITR 272 (Delhi High Court)] 3. CIT vs. Torrent Power Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 474 (Gujarat High Court) It was held that Rule 8D was not applicable in the AY 2005-06 to 2007- 08.Rule 8D came into existence from 24.03.2008 and hence it was not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. In this support Ld.AR has relied on the judgement of Bombay H…

Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

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

ITA 1533/KOL/2015[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Harakamal Chakravorty, ARFor Respondent: Shr P.K.Srihari, CIT

Section 115J

Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 64/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhिनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./64/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7045/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5609/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Motilal Oswal Financial Services Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 2Nd Floor, Palm Spring Centre Mumbai-400 020. Vs. New Link Road, Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064. Pan:Aaecm 2876 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar -Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar -DR

Section 14ASection 254(1)

…,that paragraph 24 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd.was in favour of the assessee,that the AO had not recorded dissatisfaction about the disallowance. He referred to the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd.(347 ITR 272) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.The DR argued that investment was made from the common fund,that there was no co-relation between the interest expenditure and investment made,that the assessee had not maintained separate books of accounts.He relied upon the case of Maxopp India delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4.5.We have heard the rival su…

Nikita Jajodia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 52(5), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7674/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…total expenditure disallowed under Rule 8D shall not exceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following case laws:- - Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) - ITAT, Delhi ‘C’ Bench decision dated 23.3.2012 in the case of M/s Gillette Group India Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Wella Haircosmetics India Pvt. Ltd.) vs. ACIT passed in ITA No. 267/Del/2012 (AY 2008-09) - ITAT, Mumbai ‘E’ Bench decision dated 02.3.2012 passed in the case of Search Envrio Ltd. vs. ACIT passed in ITA No. 3464/Mum/2011 (AY 2…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…y satisfaction recorded in the assessment order, the disallowance as per Rule 8D needs to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) - Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.) - H.T. Media Limited v. PC1T: ITA No.548/2015 (Del.) dated 23.8.2017 - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: ITA No. 136/2017 dated 15.09.2017 Even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses with investments, warranting disallowance u/s 14A. 57. On interest expenditure, the Ld. AR submitte…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Chaitanya Properties Pvt Ltd

ITA/569/2015HC Karnataka15 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 14ASection 260

…he rival contentions and have perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements placed reliance upon by the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd., V/s. CIT reported in 347 ITR 272 has held that by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act, if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied by the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, cannot embark upon the determination of the amount of expenditure in accordance with…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…y satisfaction recorded in the assessment order, the disallowance as per Rule 8D needs to be deleted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) - Maxopp Investment Ltd: 347 ITR 272 (Del.) - H.T. Media Limited v. PC1T: ITA No.548/2015 (Del.) dated 23.8.2017 - Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. CIT: ITA No. 136/2017 dated 15.09.2017 Even otherwise, there is no nexus of expenses, like interest expenditure and other administrative expenses with investments, warranting disallowance u/s 14A. 68. On interest expenditure, the Ld. AR submitte…

Nikunj Jajodia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 52(5), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7673/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Express Newspapaers (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3664/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: V Mohan, ARFor Respondent: V Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “G” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3664/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner of M/s Indian Express Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. Room No. 608, 6th Floor, Express Towers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) PAN No. AAACI2555F Revenue by : V Vidhyadhar, DR Assessee by : V Mohan, AR Date of hearing: 16-05-20…