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

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

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

ITA 1637/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…

Comstar Automotive Technologies (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 830/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Jr
Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 5Section 71

…was argued that in the appellant case also the provisions of Rule 80 should not be applied for AY.2008-09. This argument cannot be accepted since in the case of TVS Investments, the ITAT by relying on the decision in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd v. CIT (347 ITR 272) (Delhi HC) which pertain to AY.02-03, has held as under: "In the light thereof, we are also of the opinion that both the authorities below have erred in applying section 14A(3) read with Rule 80. At the same time, the Hon'ble Court has also held that the disallowance quea expenditure in earning exempt income can still be made on 'reasonable basi…

Comstar Automotive Technologies (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 829/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Jr
Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 5Section 71

…was argued that in the appellant case also the provisions of Rule 80 should not be applied for AY.2008-09. This argument cannot be accepted since in the case of TVS Investments, the ITAT by relying on the decision in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd v. CIT (347 ITR 272) (Delhi HC) which pertain to AY.02-03, has held as under: "In the light thereof, we are also of the opinion that both the authorities below have erred in applying section 14A(3) read with Rule 80. At the same time, the Hon'ble Court has also held that the disallowance quea expenditure in earning exempt income can still be made on 'reasonable basi…

Comstar Automotive Technologies (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 828/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Jr
Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 5Section 71

…was argued that in the appellant case also the provisions of Rule 80 should not be applied for AY.2008-09. This argument cannot be accepted since in the case of TVS Investments, the ITAT by relying on the decision in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd v. CIT (347 ITR 272) (Delhi HC) which pertain to AY.02-03, has held as under: "In the light thereof, we are also of the opinion that both the authorities below have erred in applying section 14A(3) read with Rule 80. At the same time, the Hon'ble Court has also held that the disallowance quea expenditure in earning exempt income can still be made on 'reasonable basi…

Comstar Automotive Technologies (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 827/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Jr
Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 5Section 71

…was argued that in the appellant case also the provisions of Rule 80 should not be applied for AY.2008-09. This argument cannot be accepted since in the case of TVS Investments, the ITAT by relying on the decision in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd v. CIT (347 ITR 272) (Delhi HC) which pertain to AY.02-03, has held as under: "In the light thereof, we are also of the opinion that both the authorities below have erred in applying section 14A(3) read with Rule 80. At the same time, the Hon'ble Court has also held that the disallowance quea expenditure in earning exempt income can still be made on 'reasonable basi…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Comstar Automotive Technologies P Ltd., Chengalput

ITA 1072/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Jr
Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 5Section 71

…was argued that in the appellant case also the provisions of Rule 80 should not be applied for AY.2008-09. This argument cannot be accepted since in the case of TVS Investments, the ITAT by relying on the decision in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd v. CIT (347 ITR 272) (Delhi HC) which pertain to AY.02-03, has held as under: "In the light thereof, we are also of the opinion that both the authorities below have erred in applying section 14A(3) read with Rule 80. At the same time, the Hon'ble Court has also held that the disallowance quea expenditure in earning exempt income can still be made on 'reasonable basi…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Comstar Automotive Technologies P Ltd., Chengalput

ITA 1071/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Jr
Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 5Section 71

…was argued that in the appellant case also the provisions of Rule 80 should not be applied for AY.2008-09. This argument cannot be accepted since in the case of TVS Investments, the ITAT by relying on the decision in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd v. CIT (347 ITR 272) (Delhi HC) which pertain to AY.02-03, has held as under: "In the light thereof, we are also of the opinion that both the authorities below have erred in applying section 14A(3) read with Rule 80. At the same time, the Hon'ble Court has also held that the disallowance quea expenditure in earning exempt income can still be made on 'reasonable basi…

DCIT CC 3(1) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Wind World Wind Farms (Karnataka) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result this ground is partly allowed

ITA 6828/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80I

…08/M/12) and Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT in case of REI Agro Ltd. (ITA 1331/KOL/2O11). I have considered the arguments of the assessee and gone through the decisions cited. As held by the Hon'ble Delhi HC M/s. Wind World Wind Farms (Krishna) Ltd., in Cheminvest Ltd. 347 ITR 272, strategic investments which are not for the purpose of earning dividend should be excluded for the purposes of calculation of disallowance u/r. 8D. Various other decisions also support the view of the assessee. Following the same, I direct the AO to exclude the strategic investments made by the assessee in the sister concerns while calculating t…

Wadhwagroup Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6357/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner Of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, Central Circle- Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd बिधम/ 5(4), Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Platina, Plot C-59, G Floor, Air India Building. Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Nariman Point Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ld by no means be excluded for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The CIT(A) in support of his aforesaid observations relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del). P a g e | 13 ITA No. 6357 & 6268/Mum/2016 AY: 2012-13 M/s Wadhwan Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT CC-5(4) DCIT Vs. M/s Wadhawan Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd 11. The CIT(A) further took up the contention of the assessee that as it had sufficient own funds by way of share capital, reserves etc, therefore, the investments in the shares could sa…

DCIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhawan Group Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6268/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Wadhawan Group Holdings Deputy Commissioner Of बिधम/ Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Income Tax, Central Circle- Plot C-59, G Block Bandra 5(4), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Wadhawan Group Income Tax, Central Circle- Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 301, 3Rd बिधम/ 5(4), Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Platina, Plot C-59, G Floor, Air India Building. Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Nariman Point Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccv3961G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ld by no means be excluded for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The CIT(A) in support of his aforesaid observations relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del). P a g e | 13 ITA No. 6357 & 6268/Mum/2016 AY: 2012-13 M/s Wadhwan Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT CC-5(4) DCIT Vs. M/s Wadhawan Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd 11. The CIT(A) further took up the contention of the assessee that as it had sufficient own funds by way of share capital, reserves etc, therefore, the investments in the shares could sa…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Mangalore

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

ITA 1335/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…rule (2) to rule 8D of the IT Rules. Sub-rule (2) does not come into operation until and unless specific condition in sub-rule (1) is satisfied. This position is reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/[2011] 203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) and Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81/194 Taxman 203. The AO had not given any finding as to how the claim of the assessee-bank that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income was incorrect. In the absence of such finding, resort cannot be had to…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

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

ITA 1265/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…rule (2) to rule 8D of the IT Rules. Sub-rule (2) does not come into operation until and unless specific condition in sub-rule (1) is satisfied. This position is reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/[2011] 203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) and Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81/194 Taxman 203. The AO had not given any finding as to how the claim of the assessee-bank that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income was incorrect. In the absence of such finding, resort cannot be had to…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

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

ITA 1397/BANG/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…rule (2) to rule 8D of the IT Rules. Sub-rule (2) does not come into operation until and unless specific condition in sub-rule (1) is satisfied. This position is reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/[2011] 203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) and Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81/194 Taxman 203. The AO had not given any finding as to how the claim of the assessee-bank that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income was incorrect. In the absence of such finding, resort cannot be had to…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

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

ITA 1396/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…rule (2) to rule 8D of the IT Rules. Sub-rule (2) does not come into operation until and unless specific condition in sub-rule (1) is satisfied. This position is reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/[2011] 203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) and Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81/194 Taxman 203. The AO had not given any finding as to how the claim of the assessee-bank that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income was incorrect. In the absence of such finding, resort cannot be had to…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1335/BANG/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…rule (2) to rule 8D of the IT Rules. Sub-rule (2) does not come into operation until and unless specific condition in sub-rule (1) is satisfied. This position is reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/[2011] 203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) and Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81/194 Taxman 203. The AO had not given any finding as to how the claim of the assessee-bank that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income was incorrect. In the absence of such finding, resort cannot be had to…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1334/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…rule (2) to rule 8D of the IT Rules. Sub-rule (2) does not come into operation until and unless specific condition in sub-rule (1) is satisfied. This position is reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/[2011] 203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) and Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81/194 Taxman 203. The AO had not given any finding as to how the claim of the assessee-bank that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income was incorrect. In the absence of such finding, resort cannot be had to…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

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

ITA 753/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…rule (2) to rule 8D of the IT Rules. Sub-rule (2) does not come into operation until and unless specific condition in sub-rule (1) is satisfied. This position is reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/[2011] 203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi) and Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81/194 Taxman 203. The AO had not given any finding as to how the claim of the assessee-bank that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income was incorrect. In the absence of such finding, resort cannot be had to…

DCIT - 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bnp Paribas Asset Management India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5113/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. Nos.5113/M/2016 & 5114/M/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 DCIT-14(1)(1) Vs. M/s. BNP Paribas Asset R.No. 460, 4th Floor, Management India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, BNP Paribas House-1, Mumbai-400020 North Avenue, Maker Maxity, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECA5153B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Niraj Sheth Department by: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR) Date of Hearing: 31.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 15.01.2018 O R D E R PER AMAR…

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10

ITA 1536/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1533-1536/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri -Vs- M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccg 0424 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…n’ble ITAT, Kolkata in different case without taking into 3 M/s Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Yrs. 08-09,09-10,10-11 & 12-13 consideration the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, New Delhi reported in 347 ITR 272(Delhi) (2012), wherein the addition made by the AO under provisions of sec. 14A of the Act, by disallowing interest expenses relatable to exempt income in respect of invest made in group companies has been upheld. (b) Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur v…

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10

ITA 1535/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1533-1536/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri -Vs- M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccg 0424 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…n’ble ITAT, Kolkata in different case without taking into 3 M/s Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Yrs. 08-09,09-10,10-11 & 12-13 consideration the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, New Delhi reported in 347 ITR 272(Delhi) (2012), wherein the addition made by the AO under provisions of sec. 14A of the Act, by disallowing interest expenses relatable to exempt income in respect of invest made in group companies has been upheld. (b) Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur v…