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

Santosh Chandulal Mandlecha, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

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

ITA 1007/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s and relying on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), judgment in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.), I find it is obvious inference that assessee has adequate interest free funds and assessee also earned profits in the current year. All these interest free funds are sufficient enough to take care of the exempt income yielding investments considering the principle of presumption, laid down by the jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Cou…

Avinash Ramchandra Phadnis, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer

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

ITA 2958/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2958/Pun/2016 िनधा!रण वष! / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…and relying on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), judgment in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.), I find it is obvious inference that assessee has adequate interest free funds and assessee also earned profits in the current year. All these interest free funds are sufficient enough to take care of the exempt income yielding investments considering the principle of presumption laid down by the various courts. 5 Avinash R. Phadnis 1…

Star Chemicals (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2891/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2891/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. ThanawalaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…st record a finding that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim for expenditure made by the assessee in relation to income, which did not form part of the total income. 12. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited ITR 347 ITR 272 held that the condition precedent for the AO to determine the amount of expenditure under Rule 8D is that he must record his dissatisfaction with the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee or with the correctness of the claim made by the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred. It is only when this condition precedent…

Orbit Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 223/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 14A

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.223/PUN/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Orbit Electricals Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Coated Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No. 5, Harmony Complex, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune – 411007 PAN : AAACF2636C .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nik…

Orbit Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 222/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 14A

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.222/PUN/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Orbit Electricals Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Majesty Investment Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No. 5, Harmony Complex, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune – 411007 PAN : AAACF2636C .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle – 1(2), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by :…

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

In the result, Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 243/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R
Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(7)

…Del./2015 M/s. MMTC Ltd., New Delhi. following the order giving effect to the order of ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1995-1996. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., vs. CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del.) for the premise that Rule 8D is applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-2009 onwards. Therefore, it cannot be applied in assessment year under appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) considered that it is a controversial issue because appellate authorities have taken different views and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterho…

Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 923/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.923/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers Dcit 4(3) (P) Ltd., 206 Anand Bhavan, R.No. 649, 6 T H Floor, 17 Babugenu Road, Aaykar Bhavan, V. Princess Street, M K Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacp2213P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal
Section 10Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…t of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and therefore no ratio could be said to have been laid down. Therefore the appellant cannot draw any support from the above quoted judgment. Reliance has also been placed in Delhi High Court's decision in Maxopp Investments Ltd. 203 Taxmann 364. However, it is seen that this decision pertained to AY 1998-99 to AY 2005-06 whereas section 14A(2) and (3) were introduced with prospective effect from AY 2007- 08. This decision cannot therefore provide support to the appellant's case. The jurisdictional Bombay High Court has held in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 234 CTR 1 that rule…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co, . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6055/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar with MsFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT -2(1) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 PAN:AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. ACIT -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 PAN:AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT -2(1) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5th Floor,…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar with MsFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT -2(1) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 PAN:AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. ACIT -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 PAN:AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT -2(1) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5th Floor,…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4220/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…in relation to the exempt income. The aforesaid understanding of the mechanics of Sec. 14A of the Act is clear from the reading of Sub-section (2) & (3) thereof and also from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), which has approved the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., 328 ITR 81 (Bom) on the aspect of recording of satisfaction contemplated in Sec. 14A(2) of th…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4219/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…in relation to the exempt income. The aforesaid understanding of the mechanics of Sec. 14A of the Act is clear from the reading of Sub-section (2) & (3) thereof and also from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), which has approved the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., 328 ITR 81 (Bom) on the aspect of recording of satisfaction contemplated in Sec. 14A(2) of th…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4048/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…in relation to the exempt income. The aforesaid understanding of the mechanics of Sec. 14A of the Act is clear from the reading of Sub-section (2) & (3) thereof and also from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), which has approved the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., 328 ITR 81 (Bom) on the aspect of recording of satisfaction contemplated in Sec. 14A(2) of th…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4047/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…in relation to the exempt income. The aforesaid understanding of the mechanics of Sec. 14A of the Act is clear from the reading of Sub-section (2) & (3) thereof and also from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), which has approved the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., 328 ITR 81 (Bom) on the aspect of recording of satisfaction contemplated in Sec. 14A(2) of th…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…in relation to the exempt income. The aforesaid understanding of the mechanics of Sec. 14A of the Act is clear from the reading of Sub-section (2) & (3) thereof and also from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC), which has approved the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., 328 ITR 81 (Bom) on the aspect of recording of satisfaction contemplated in Sec. 14A(2) of th…

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mercury Travels Ltd., Kolkata

In the result we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the revenue

ITA 236/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Gupta, AR
Section 14A

…sue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. He applied under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act without recording of satisfaction as mandatory required as held in the judgment of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) . We do not find any infirmity in this order of the ld. CIT(A). In the result we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the revenue. 4. Ground no.3 is general in nature which does not require any adjudication. 5. In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 21.03.2018. [A.T.Varkey] [ J.Sudha…

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. M/S Banwarilall Pasari, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2115/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2114 & 2115/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Acit Cir 34..............................………………………...........................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 107. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari………………………………………………...............................Respondent 16, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aacfb 7611 A] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2018 Order

…A.O. was not justified to make a further disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. In support of this contention, reliance inter alia was placed by the assessee on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 347 ITR 272 and Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Abhisek Industries Ltd. 231 taxman 85. The Ld. CIT(A) found merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the assessee and in the absence of requisite satisfaction recorded by the A.O. regarding the incorrectness of the claim of the assessee in respect of disallowance offered under secti…

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. M/S Banwarilall Pasari, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2114/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2114 & 2115/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Acit Cir 34..............................………………………...........................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 107. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari………………………………………………...............................Respondent 16, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aacfb 7611 A] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2018 Order

…A.O. was not justified to make a further disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. In support of this contention, reliance inter alia was placed by the assessee on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 347 ITR 272 and Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Abhisek Industries Ltd. 231 taxman 85. The Ld. CIT(A) found merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the assessee and in the absence of requisite satisfaction recorded by the A.O. regarding the incorrectness of the claim of the assessee in respect of disallowance offered under secti…

DCIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2817/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

For Appellant: Farrokh V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: B. Sriniwas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM The Dy. Commissioner of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 BKC, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAACK4409J Cross Objection No. 38/Mum/2018 (Arising in ITA No. 2817/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of 27 BKC, G Block, Bandra Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai R. No. 552, 5 th Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. (…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharti Telecom Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the excess additions made in terms of Rule 8D for an amount of Rs

ITA 5667/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Bharti Telecom Ltd. Circle-2(1) Bharti Crescent, 1-Nelson New Delhi Mandela Road, (Appellant) Vasant Kunj, Phase-Ii New Delhi Aaacb1456G (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…s debited to the profit & loss account and cannot exceed the same. I have gone through the facts and submissions made by the appellant and am of the view that in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) it is imperative for the AO to record his satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the assessee’s claim with regard to Section 14A(2) of the IT Act, before embarking upon application of Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, it is also seen that in the facts of the case while the assessee has made a suo motu disallowance of Rs. 3,43,0…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asahi India Glass Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 2183/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Asahi India Glass Limited, Dcit, Circle- 2(1), 38, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Vs. Phase- Iii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Sandip Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…ssing Officer by observing as under :- “12.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The assessment year under consideration is 2006-07. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del), has held that the provisions of Rule 8D are applicable only from the assessment year 2008-09. It has further been held that in the period anterior to that, the disallowance is required to be made on some reasonable basis. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on the point, we cannot approve the view taken by the…